Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:23 AM - Gretz Heated Pitot For Sale (Barry Marz)
2. 05:35 AM - Re: IFR (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
3. 06:23 AM - Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
4. 06:44 AM - Re: IFR (Kelly McMullen)
5. 06:59 AM - Re: IFR (Seano)
6. 07:12 AM - Re: Gretz Heated Pitot For Sale (Barry Marz)
7. 07:12 AM - Re: IFR (Tim Olson)
8. 07:52 AM - Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
9. 07:55 AM - Re: IFR (David McNeill)
10. 08:35 AM - Re: IFR (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
11. 08:42 AM - Re: IFR (Perry, Phil)
12. 08:51 AM - Re: IFR (Seano)
13. 09:18 AM - Re: IFR (Tim Olson)
14. 09:34 AM - FS: Heated Pitot and Mount (Michael Kraus)
15. 09:34 AM - Re: IFR (William Curtis)
16. 09:34 AM - FS: AOA Pro from AFS (Michael Kraus)
17. 09:43 AM - Re: IFR (Perry, Phil)
18. 09:56 AM - Re: IFR (Seano)
19. 10:11 AM - Re: IFR (Tim Olson)
20. 10:26 AM - Re: IFR (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
21. 11:53 AM - Re: IFR (Bob Turner)
22. 11:58 AM - Re: IFR (Patrick Thyssen)
23. 12:10 PM - Pitot For Sale (Chuck Weyant)
24. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Perry, Phil)
25. 12:53 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Perry, Phil)
26. 01:06 PM - Re: IFR (lbgjb10)
27. 01:58 PM - Re: IFR (Bob Turner)
28. 01:58 PM - Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
29. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: IFR (William Curtis)
30. 02:17 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Miller John)
31. 02:37 PM - Re: Re: IFR (David McNeill)
32. 02:43 PM - Re: Re: IFR (David McNeill)
33. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
34. 03:18 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Tim Olson)
35. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Tim Olson)
36. 03:44 PM - Re: IFR (Robert Brunkenhoefer)
37. 04:36 PM - Re: IFR (Rick Lark)
38. 04:57 PM - Re: Re: IFR (ricksked@embarqmail.com)
39. 07:46 PM - Re: IFR (Marcus Cooper)
40. 08:07 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Dave Leikam)
41. 08:16 PM - Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
42. 08:24 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Tim Olson)
43. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
44. 08:53 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Dave Leikam)
45. 09:44 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Dave Saylor)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Gretz Heated Pitot For Sale |
In new condition Gretz GA-1000 Heated Pitot, Controller, Wiring with
indicator lights and instructions. Mounting bracket not included.
Controller and Pitot was installed and tested but never flown.
$300.00 plus $15.00 S&H. Contact me direct. Thanks Barry.
Do Not Archive
Barry Marz
18735 Baseleg AVE.
FT. Myers, Fl 33917
239-567-2271
blalmarz@embarqmail.com
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
> (after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who
> need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable
> platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a
> good IFR GPS.
>
> do not archive
Congratulations! Encouragement barely needed but welcome.
I've done all my IFR in the Maule sans AP. Turned out the first
requirement for flight was having a well organized knee board and flight
bag. Five seconds of inattention and it all goes down hill. But it was
all worth the ability to just get there, when you want to, most of the time.
Now that I'm not staying current, I miss flying in the system. Flying a
plan in the system is the easyest way to fly cc independent of weather -
even on those flights where canceling is the best way to complete the
flight.
Looking forward to the '10 with AP, syn vision, WAAS, and some excess
hp. Wheeee!
Bill
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal minimums"?
Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling minimums. Others
say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will only go if their destination
is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR.
I would certainly feel comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo.
This pole, at least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot
(just for conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
> you're having a good time!
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10 (after passing
my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who need the extra encouragement
in building, this is an incredibly stable platform for IFR flight,
especially with a good autopilot driven by a good IFR GPS.
>> do not archive
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>> *
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or 400
ft above minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One
caution...having another pilot along is actually a detriment unless you
have practiced flying together and coordinating cockpit resource
management. Otherwise neither one knows what to expect and who should be
responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable with what
other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s) as tight to
centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of
time..don't chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to
center. Of course GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could
purposely fly one dot right enroute, to avoid being dead center on
airway with someone else, just go back to centered as soon as you
transition to approach plate.
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal minimums"?
Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling minimums. Others
say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will only go if their destination
is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR.
I would certainly feel comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo.
This pole, at least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot
(just for conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>> you're having a good time!
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10 (after passing
my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who need the extra encouragement
in building, this is an incredibly stable platform for IFR flight,
especially with a good autopilot driven by a good IFR GPS.
>>> do not archive
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I would only base minimums on personal currency. If you are properly
trained and comfortable with your currency than I would go to minimums. If
there are two pilots, one of the pilots should be comfortable alone doing
the approach unless both of you are used to a two crew environment. Also,
if you are flying with two crew and relying on the other pilot you should
both brief the approaches and know who does what function. There are
accidents from pilots feeing more confident with two pilots even though they
both have gone without flying IFR approaches for awhile. I would have a
competent safety pilot flying right seat, not just a body.
I fly a Citation, single pilot, for a living. It is amazing how fast you
can lose your IFR skills if you don't fly very often.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@saintaviation.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal
minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling
minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will only
go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the approach
when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel comfortable lower with
another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at least for my info, would be
single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for conversation, say it's an
autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so
the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
> you're having a good time!
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10 (after
>> passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who need the
>> extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable platform
>> for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a good IFR
>> GPS.
>> do not archive
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>> *
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Gretz Heated Pitot For Sale |
Pitot has been sold. Thanks Do Not Archive
Barry Marz
18735 Baseleg AVE.
FT. Myers, Fl 33917
239-567-2271
blalmarz@embarqmail.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I agree with Kelly, you do what you're comfortable with. Also,
it depends on the weather. I don't feel bad going to minimums
if the rest of the weather isn't horrible, (i.e. not tons of
wind and turbulence), but if it were going to be heavy rain
or something like that, I would either use higher minimums
or maybe not shoot the approach at all. With heavy rain is
often thunderstorms. So minimums would vary from day to day.
This time of year I am much more conservative too, because
up here it's icing all over the place. I like to know
I either have a very thin layer to go through, or lots of
clear sky underneath, because I really don't want to do a
whole approach where I have to descend 6,000' through
clouds with icing potential. (not known icing...potential icing..
we shouldn't fly at all in known icing but any cloud near/below
freezing is potential icing)
I agree too that while another pilot makes you feel comfortable,
some of the most F-'d up situations I've been in while IFR
were with other pilots. If you have one that only does
minimal and helpful things, like monitor your horizon, and
maybe hold things and open charts, great. Too much help isn't
always good unless it's quality help.
So minimums are a very flexible thing. In general, if I'm
up to par in "comfort" from recent practice, I don't mind
going down to minimums. Otherwise it's nice to have at
least 100'-200' of added padding in there, and in certain
situations much more. On a turbulent windy day, I may
choose an alternate if I can't get within 300' of minimums.
It all depends.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or 400
> ft above minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One
> caution...having another pilot along is actually a detriment unless you
> have practiced flying together and coordinating cockpit resource
> management. Otherwise neither one knows what to expect and who should be
> responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable with what
> other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s) as tight to
> centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of
> time..don't chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to
> center. Of course GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could
> purposely fly one dot right enroute, to avoid being dead center on
> airway with someone else, just go back to centered as soon as you
> transition to approach plate.
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>
>> This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal
>> minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling
>> minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will
>> only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the
>> approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel comfortable
>> lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at least for
>> my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for
>> conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
>> Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II
>> non-V).
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>>> you're having a good time!
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
>>>> (after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those
>>>> who need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly
>>>> stable platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot
>>>> driven by a good IFR GPS.
>>>> do not archive
>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Interesting feedback from all. I was actually expecting much more conservative/cautious
responses. All of the local pilots I talked to say something like,
"I only go if I have circling minimums at origin and destination" or "my minimum
is 1,000 AGL". I realize it depends a great deal on currency as well as equipment.
For example, in an RV-10 with a Sorcerer auto pilot driven by a GNS-430W,
I would feel comfortable shooting an approach to minimums if I have Troy
(pilot friend who I trained along side) with me. I would go for minimums plus
100-200 alone. With a Dynon auto-pilot, I would go minimums plus 200 with Troy
and probably circling to 1,000 alone. In the Archer with GPSS and Altitude
Hold and steam gauges, I would go the same as the RV-10 with a Dynon. In the
C-172 with minimum IFR instrumentation, I would probably be hesitant to even
do any IFR enroute, but would definitely want MVFR or VFR at the origin and destination.
Also, having in-flight weather (496, 696, etc) is almost an absolute personal requirement.
My hat goes off to those of you who used to fly IFR X-Country with
nothing but VOR's and ADF (what is that anyway).
I do completely agree that a second pilot does not necessarily make you safer.
I was referring to a second pilot who I have flown with a lot. Someone who just
helps watch altitudes, calls out when out of clouds, tunes radios if I ask
him to (not otherwise), etc. It doesn't have to be a pilot necessarily, but
needs to be someone I am comfortable getting added information from. It sure
is nice to be able to fly the airplane and have someone else pull up a plate or
tune in an ATIS or something like that.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I agree with Kelly, you do what you're comfortable with. Also,
> it depends on the weather. I don't feel bad going to minimums
> if the rest of the weather isn't horrible, (i.e. not tons of
> wind and turbulence), but if it were going to be heavy rain
> or something like that, I would either use higher minimums
> or maybe not shoot the approach at all. With heavy rain is
> often thunderstorms. So minimums would vary from day to day.
> This time of year I am much more conservative too, because
> up here it's icing all over the place. I like to know
> I either have a very thin layer to go through, or lots of
> clear sky underneath, because I really don't want to do a
> whole approach where I have to descend 6,000' through
> clouds with icing potential. (not known icing...potential icing..
> we shouldn't fly at all in known icing but any cloud near/below
> freezing is potential icing)
>
> I agree too that while another pilot makes you feel comfortable,
> some of the most F-'d up situations I've been in while IFR
> were with other pilots. If you have one that only does
> minimal and helpful things, like monitor your horizon, and
> maybe hold things and open charts, great. Too much help isn't
> always good unless it's quality help.
>
> So minimums are a very flexible thing. In general, if I'm
> up to par in "comfort" from recent practice, I don't mind
> going down to minimums. Otherwise it's nice to have at
> least 100'-200' of added padding in there, and in certain
> situations much more. On a turbulent windy day, I may
> choose an alternate if I can't get within 300' of minimums.
> It all depends.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or 400 ft above
minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One caution...having another pilot
along is actually a detriment unless you have practiced flying together and
coordinating cockpit resource management. Otherwise neither one knows what
to expect and who should be responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable
with what other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s)
as tight to centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of time..don't
chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to center. Of course
GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could purposely fly one dot right
enroute, to avoid being dead center on airway with someone else, just go
back to centered as soon as you transition to approach plate.
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>
>>> This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal minimums"?
Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling minimums. Others
say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will only go if their destination
is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR.
I would certainly feel comfortable lower with another pilot than I would
solo. This pole, at least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot
(just for conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering
and Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>>>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>>>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>>>> you're having a good time!
>>>>
>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10 (after
passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who need the extra
encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable platform for IFR flight,
especially with a good autopilot driven by a good IFR GPS.
>>>>> do not archive
>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
When I started flying IFR in IMC (1979) alternate minimums must be forecast
for the destiniation and of course the alternate. I was hand flying a
C177RG; autopilot was INOP (never worked from new). I now use published
minimums but I don't accept ice enroute (perhaps a little on IMC climb out
or on IMC approach to assured landing). Also I an more inclined to go to
minimums by myself than with any non pilot passengers. Of course now its
easy with the Cheltons, GPS and VSGV. Back then it was dual VORs, single GS
and Strikefinder and hand flying.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal
minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling
minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will only
go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the approach
when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel comfortable lower with
another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at least for my info, would be
single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for conversation, say it's an
autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so
the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a plane
> that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad you're having a good
> time!
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10 (after
passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who need the
extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable platform for
IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a good IFR GPS.
>> do not archive
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>> *
>
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Personally, I never managed to establish 'personal minimums'. So many
variables. How proficient I was at a given point in time played a large
role. The FAA requirements are minimal. Flying a couple of meaningful
flights earlier in the same day = real proficiency.
Flying privately, one has total control and mainly has to manage "get
there-itis". No small feat. Especially with passengers. Especially
with fellow pilots. Perceived pressure, internal pressure, and the
distraction factor all play parts. The trick is to eliminate most of it
and recognize distractions for what they are and manage them. My best
aid is an experienced life partner who almost always flies shotgun.
Variables - approach to minimums in a stable or lifting situation with
easy alternates is one thing. An evening approach to minimums where you
know from experience that it may change to an unforecast ground fog at
any moment at any airport within 200 miles is another.
Familiarity - doing the procedure at your home 'port is a lot easier
than a first one at a new 'port. When you know the next freq before
told and the probable vector before given, it's all easier. Doing it in
your personal aircraft versus a rental - Heaven!
Departures vs Approaches - We tend to focus on and talk about
"approaches to minimums". But approaches always occur after you've had
a chance to fully adjust the sound and feel of flight. One of the
toughest things I discovered is departures into IMC, especially if it's
the first flight of the day/week/month. One day I did 2 VMC takeoffs
after a duct tape patch to some scat tubing. The third takeoff was into
a 500' ceiling for a 100% IMC flight of 1.5 hours. As soon as I lifted
off I smelled smoke and then it sounded like a cylinder was slightly
missing. I later concluded that the cylinder was just "over water
roughness" and the 'smoke' was the smell that was there on takeoffs 1
and 2 and 4 and 5 and 6... that is, until the duct tape patch stopped
smelling. I only noticed it because of the IMC departure. Just nerves.
Bill "can't wait for an autopilot" Watson
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal minimums"?
Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling minimums. Others
say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will only go if their destination
is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR.
I would certainly feel comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo.
This pole, at least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot
(just for conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
When I was polishing for my IFR checkride I had a scary experience (in
IMC - partial panel) where the airplane turned 180 degrees without being
noticed by me or my instructor. ATC finally came on the radio to check
on us about the time I realized we were headed the opposite direction.
I was pretty confident in the clouds up until that point, but that one
experience absolutely destroyed any confidence I had and soured any
desire to challenge myself in the clouds. For me the scariest part is
that I was probably as proficient as I'll ever be at the time I was
polishing for the real checkride.
At that moment, I realized I will always fly in real IMC with a good
autopilot and practice all other procedures by hand flying the airplane
to maintain proficiency. I'm not a professional pilot who flies in the
clouds every week and I don't pretend to be one. So I'm not embarrassed
to admit the use of the autopilot, avoiding hand flying, and doing what
I can to make the flight safer.
When it comes to minimums, I'll go with 700' to a precision approach and
1000' to a non-precision approach. (Reference my scary experience above
and it correlates to my conservative minimums.) This allows some room
if the forecast is completely wrong. It also allows some margin in the
event there are autopilot issues and I may not be flying an absolutely
perfect approach setup to hit the MAP at minimums.
Once the -10 is up and running, I really expect those minimums to drop
since it will be easier for me to stay current. But I'll always have a
lot of respect for the clouds.
By the way, my RV-10 will have a Sorcerer auto-pilot. You can buy an
engine that's overkill and you can buy a panel that's overkill -but you
just can't buy an autopilot that's overkill. It's impossible. :)
Phil "Fraidy Cat" Perry
(I did that for you Bill)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Saint [mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
Interesting feedback from all. I was actually expecting much more
conservative/cautious responses. All of the local pilots I talked to
say something like, "I only go if I have circling minimums at origin and
destination" or "my minimum is 1,000 AGL". I realize it depends a great
deal on currency as well as equipment. For example, in an RV-10 with a
Sorcerer auto pilot driven by a GNS-430W, I would feel comfortable
shooting an approach to minimums if I have Troy (pilot friend who I
trained along side) with me. I would go for minimums plus 100-200
alone. With a Dynon auto-pilot, I would go minimums plus 200 with Troy
and probably circling to 1,000 alone. In the Archer with GPSS and
Altitude Hold and steam gauges, I would go the same as the RV-10 with a
Dynon. In the C-172 with minimum IFR instrumentation, I would probably
be hesitant to even do any IFR enroute, but would definitely want MVFR
or VFR at the origin and destination.
Also, having in-flight weather (496, 696, etc) is almost an absolute
personal requirement. My hat goes off to those of you who used to fly
IFR X-Country with nothing but VOR's and ADF (what is that anyway).
I do completely agree that a second pilot does not necessarily make you
safer. I was referring to a second pilot who I have flown with a lot.
Someone who just helps watch altitudes, calls out when out of clouds,
tunes radios if I ask him to (not otherwise), etc. It doesn't have to
be a pilot necessarily, but needs to be someone I am comfortable getting
added information from. It sure is nice to be able to fly the airplane
and have someone else pull up a plate or tune in an ATIS or something
like that.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I agree with Kelly, you do what you're comfortable with. Also,
> it depends on the weather. I don't feel bad going to minimums
> if the rest of the weather isn't horrible, (i.e. not tons of
> wind and turbulence), but if it were going to be heavy rain
> or something like that, I would either use higher minimums
> or maybe not shoot the approach at all. With heavy rain is
> often thunderstorms. So minimums would vary from day to day.
> This time of year I am much more conservative too, because
> up here it's icing all over the place. I like to know
> I either have a very thin layer to go through, or lots of
> clear sky underneath, because I really don't want to do a
> whole approach where I have to descend 6,000' through
> clouds with icing potential. (not known icing...potential icing..
> we shouldn't fly at all in known icing but any cloud near/below
> freezing is potential icing)
>
> I agree too that while another pilot makes you feel comfortable,
> some of the most F-'d up situations I've been in while IFR
> were with other pilots. If you have one that only does
> minimal and helpful things, like monitor your horizon, and
> maybe hold things and open charts, great. Too much help isn't
> always good unless it's quality help.
>
> So minimums are a very flexible thing. In general, if I'm
> up to par in "comfort" from recent practice, I don't mind
> going down to minimums. Otherwise it's nice to have at
> least 100'-200' of added padding in there, and in certain
> situations much more. On a turbulent windy day, I may
> choose an alternate if I can't get within 300' of minimums.
> It all depends.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or
400 ft above minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One
caution...having another pilot along is actually a detriment unless you
have practiced flying together and coordinating cockpit resource
management. Otherwise neither one knows what to expect and who should be
responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable with what
other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s) as tight to
centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of
time..don't chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to
center. Of course GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could
purposely fly one dot right enroute, to avoid being dead center on
airway with someone else, just go back to centered as soon as you
transition to approach plate.
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>
>>> This brings up another question. What are people using for
"personal minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have
circling minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family
they will only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable
shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel
comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at
least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for
conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II
non-V).
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>>>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>>>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>>>> you're having a good time!
>>>>
>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
(after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who
need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable
platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a
good IFR GPS.
>>>>> do not archive
>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Always be ready for the autopilot failing at the worst moment. Flight Safety
loves to fail the a/p at a crucial moment when you are doing recurrent in
the sim. and it can happen in the plane. I have had mine fail by turning
early on a gps approach in the clouds.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry@netapp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: IFR
When I was polishing for my IFR checkride I had a scary experience (in
IMC - partial panel) where the airplane turned 180 degrees without being
noticed by me or my instructor. ATC finally came on the radio to check
on us about the time I realized we were headed the opposite direction.
I was pretty confident in the clouds up until that point, but that one
experience absolutely destroyed any confidence I had and soured any
desire to challenge myself in the clouds. For me the scariest part is
that I was probably as proficient as I'll ever be at the time I was
polishing for the real checkride.
At that moment, I realized I will always fly in real IMC with a good
autopilot and practice all other procedures by hand flying the airplane
to maintain proficiency. I'm not a professional pilot who flies in the
clouds every week and I don't pretend to be one. So I'm not embarrassed
to admit the use of the autopilot, avoiding hand flying, and doing what
I can to make the flight safer.
When it comes to minimums, I'll go with 700' to a precision approach and
1000' to a non-precision approach. (Reference my scary experience above
and it correlates to my conservative minimums.) This allows some room
if the forecast is completely wrong. It also allows some margin in the
event there are autopilot issues and I may not be flying an absolutely
perfect approach setup to hit the MAP at minimums.
Once the -10 is up and running, I really expect those minimums to drop
since it will be easier for me to stay current. But I'll always have a
lot of respect for the clouds.
By the way, my RV-10 will have a Sorcerer auto-pilot. You can buy an
engine that's overkill and you can buy a panel that's overkill -but you
just can't buy an autopilot that's overkill. It's impossible. :)
Phil "Fraidy Cat" Perry
(I did that for you Bill)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Saint [mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
Interesting feedback from all. I was actually expecting much more
conservative/cautious responses. All of the local pilots I talked to
say something like, "I only go if I have circling minimums at origin and
destination" or "my minimum is 1,000 AGL". I realize it depends a great
deal on currency as well as equipment. For example, in an RV-10 with a
Sorcerer auto pilot driven by a GNS-430W, I would feel comfortable
shooting an approach to minimums if I have Troy (pilot friend who I
trained along side) with me. I would go for minimums plus 100-200
alone. With a Dynon auto-pilot, I would go minimums plus 200 with Troy
and probably circling to 1,000 alone. In the Archer with GPSS and
Altitude Hold and steam gauges, I would go the same as the RV-10 with a
Dynon. In the C-172 with minimum IFR instrumentation, I would probably
be hesitant to even do any IFR enroute, but would definitely want MVFR
or VFR at the origin and destination.
Also, having in-flight weather (496, 696, etc) is almost an absolute
personal requirement. My hat goes off to those of you who used to fly
IFR X-Country with nothing but VOR's and ADF (what is that anyway).
I do completely agree that a second pilot does not necessarily make you
safer. I was referring to a second pilot who I have flown with a lot.
Someone who just helps watch altitudes, calls out when out of clouds,
tunes radios if I ask him to (not otherwise), etc. It doesn't have to
be a pilot necessarily, but needs to be someone I am comfortable getting
added information from. It sure is nice to be able to fly the airplane
and have someone else pull up a plate or tune in an ATIS or something
like that.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I agree with Kelly, you do what you're comfortable with. Also,
> it depends on the weather. I don't feel bad going to minimums
> if the rest of the weather isn't horrible, (i.e. not tons of
> wind and turbulence), but if it were going to be heavy rain
> or something like that, I would either use higher minimums
> or maybe not shoot the approach at all. With heavy rain is
> often thunderstorms. So minimums would vary from day to day.
> This time of year I am much more conservative too, because
> up here it's icing all over the place. I like to know
> I either have a very thin layer to go through, or lots of
> clear sky underneath, because I really don't want to do a
> whole approach where I have to descend 6,000' through
> clouds with icing potential. (not known icing...potential icing..
> we shouldn't fly at all in known icing but any cloud near/below
> freezing is potential icing)
>
> I agree too that while another pilot makes you feel comfortable,
> some of the most F-'d up situations I've been in while IFR
> were with other pilots. If you have one that only does
> minimal and helpful things, like monitor your horizon, and
> maybe hold things and open charts, great. Too much help isn't
> always good unless it's quality help.
>
> So minimums are a very flexible thing. In general, if I'm
> up to par in "comfort" from recent practice, I don't mind
> going down to minimums. Otherwise it's nice to have at
> least 100'-200' of added padding in there, and in certain
> situations much more. On a turbulent windy day, I may
> choose an alternate if I can't get within 300' of minimums.
> It all depends.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or
400 ft above minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One
caution...having another pilot along is actually a detriment unless you
have practiced flying together and coordinating cockpit resource
management. Otherwise neither one knows what to expect and who should be
responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable with what
other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s) as tight to
centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of
time..don't chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to
center. Of course GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could
purposely fly one dot right enroute, to avoid being dead center on
airway with someone else, just go back to centered as soon as you
transition to approach plate.
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>
>>> This brings up another question. What are people using for
"personal minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have
circling minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family
they will only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable
shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel
comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at
least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for
conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II
non-V).
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>>>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>>>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>>>> you're having a good time!
>>>>
>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
(after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who
need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable
platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a
good IFR GPS.
>>>>> do not archive
>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Your attitude is a good one. I've had my scary experiences
during training too. Luckily nothing too awful since, but
I've been well "put in my place" by IFR flying, so I've
developed that healthy respect that keeps you alive. (hopefully)
The Autopilot is essential. Ya ya ya, you should be able
to hand fly. Fine, we all know that. But, when you
get task loaded, nothing helps more than hitting a couple
buttons until you can get your head together. You can't
blindly trust the autopilot, either, but it really should
be a requirement IMHO for single-pilot ops, to have one
on board that works. At least when ceilings are lower
than VFR. When I got my IFR ticket I don't think I had
an AP in the plane, but it was my first purchase before
I'd take the family in IMC. At the time, I spent $5-7000
for an S-Tec and it was money well spent. The TruTrak
is far nicer.
Those minimums aren't bad at all. It shows a good respect
for how bad things can go. And, your point about
improving or worsening weather is very good too.
Also relevant is your proximity to better conditions.
If you can fly 50 miles and have 1000' ceilings, or
do an approach where you are to 400', you at least
have good options.
Equipment wise, and I'm sure I'll be beat up for this, I
really think that the equipment in the panel adds to
the safety aspect. You really NEED to be good at knowing
where you are by looking at some needles, but it really
takes workload off if you have a working EFIS with
moving map and a fully depicted approach. In my case,
it also has HITS. I find that it's infinitely more
relaxing to fly an approach with the equipment installed,
as it was to fly the old way. Should you rely on it?
No, of course not, but I'll tell you what... I'll fly
approaches using my full EFIS/AP setup that I wouldn't
fly if it were INOP. If I'm flying around x/c IMC
and I lose my 3 EFIS's (or is that EFii?)
(not likely but sure possible) I would probably not
keep the same destination as I would if I had the
equipment. Why should you have to? Myself, I'd make
sure I knew where the WX was better, and I'd try to
make a reasonable re-route to a good airport with a full
ILS, and get on the ground a.s.a.p. if I can find an
airport with > 1000' ceilings nearby. Luckily with the
RV-10, miles go by so fast that it's probably easy to do
most of the time. Sure, I could continue and fly on my
backups (which are still far better than what I had when
I was flying all round gauges), but I would choose safety
first and go to a good or preferrably VFR destination if
I have a good option.
If you get decked out with a good panel and that AP
you love, and you stay current, your feelings on
minimums will probably change slowly over time. But your
worry then should be on what you'll do when THAT stuff
doesn't work...because that's where you'll get bit.
By using your head, you can make good decisions.
Regarding the sorcerer...it's a great AP, but not always
necessary, depending on your other equipment. In my case
I get 99% of the functionality, but it's managed by
the EFIS. The sorcerer is nicer though, in that it's better
if you lose your EFIS. So it's a good choice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
Perry, Phil wrote:
>
> When I was polishing for my IFR checkride I had a scary experience (in
> IMC - partial panel) where the airplane turned 180 degrees without being
> noticed by me or my instructor. ATC finally came on the radio to check
> on us about the time I realized we were headed the opposite direction.
> I was pretty confident in the clouds up until that point, but that one
> experience absolutely destroyed any confidence I had and soured any
> desire to challenge myself in the clouds. For me the scariest part is
> that I was probably as proficient as I'll ever be at the time I was
> polishing for the real checkride.
>
> At that moment, I realized I will always fly in real IMC with a good
> autopilot and practice all other procedures by hand flying the airplane
> to maintain proficiency. I'm not a professional pilot who flies in the
> clouds every week and I don't pretend to be one. So I'm not embarrassed
> to admit the use of the autopilot, avoiding hand flying, and doing what
> I can to make the flight safer.
>
> When it comes to minimums, I'll go with 700' to a precision approach and
> 1000' to a non-precision approach. (Reference my scary experience above
> and it correlates to my conservative minimums.) This allows some room
> if the forecast is completely wrong. It also allows some margin in the
> event there are autopilot issues and I may not be flying an absolutely
> perfect approach setup to hit the MAP at minimums.
>
> Once the -10 is up and running, I really expect those minimums to drop
> since it will be easier for me to stay current. But I'll always have a
> lot of respect for the clouds.
>
> By the way, my RV-10 will have a Sorcerer auto-pilot. You can buy an
> engine that's overkill and you can buy a panel that's overkill -but you
> just can't buy an autopilot that's overkill. It's impossible. :)
>
> Phil "Fraidy Cat" Perry
> (I did that for you Bill)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Saint [mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:52 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>
>
> Interesting feedback from all. I was actually expecting much more
> conservative/cautious responses. All of the local pilots I talked to
> say something like, "I only go if I have circling minimums at origin and
> destination" or "my minimum is 1,000 AGL". I realize it depends a great
> deal on currency as well as equipment. For example, in an RV-10 with a
> Sorcerer auto pilot driven by a GNS-430W, I would feel comfortable
> shooting an approach to minimums if I have Troy (pilot friend who I
> trained along side) with me. I would go for minimums plus 100-200
> alone. With a Dynon auto-pilot, I would go minimums plus 200 with Troy
> and probably circling to 1,000 alone. In the Archer with GPSS and
> Altitude Hold and steam gauges, I would go the same as the RV-10 with a
> Dynon. In the C-172 with minimum IFR instrumentation, I would probably
> be hesitant to even do any IFR enroute, but would definitely want MVFR
> or VFR at the origin and destination.
>
> Also, having in-flight weather (496, 696, etc) is almost an absolute
> personal requirement. My hat goes off to those of you who used to fly
> IFR X-Country with nothing but VOR's and ADF (what is that anyway).
>
> I do completely agree that a second pilot does not necessarily make you
> safer. I was referring to a second pilot who I have flown with a lot.
> Someone who just helps watch altitudes, calls out when out of clouds,
> tunes radios if I ask him to (not otherwise), etc. It doesn't have to
> be a pilot necessarily, but needs to be someone I am comfortable getting
> added information from. It sure is nice to be able to fly the airplane
> and have someone else pull up a plate or tune in an ATIS or something
> like that.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with Kelly, you do what you're comfortable with. Also,
>> it depends on the weather. I don't feel bad going to minimums
>> if the rest of the weather isn't horrible, (i.e. not tons of
>> wind and turbulence), but if it were going to be heavy rain
>> or something like that, I would either use higher minimums
>> or maybe not shoot the approach at all. With heavy rain is
>> often thunderstorms. So minimums would vary from day to day.
>> This time of year I am much more conservative too, because
>> up here it's icing all over the place. I like to know
>> I either have a very thin layer to go through, or lots of
>> clear sky underneath, because I really don't want to do a
>> whole approach where I have to descend 6,000' through
>> clouds with icing potential. (not known icing...potential icing..
>> we shouldn't fly at all in known icing but any cloud near/below
>> freezing is potential icing)
>>
>> I agree too that while another pilot makes you feel comfortable,
>> some of the most F-'d up situations I've been in while IFR
>> were with other pilots. If you have one that only does
>> minimal and helpful things, like monitor your horizon, and
>> maybe hold things and open charts, great. Too much help isn't
>> always good unless it's quality help.
>>
>> So minimums are a very flexible thing. In general, if I'm
>> up to par in "comfort" from recent practice, I don't mind
>> going down to minimums. Otherwise it's nice to have at
>> least 100'-200' of added padding in there, and in certain
>> situations much more. On a turbulent windy day, I may
>> choose an alternate if I can't get within 300' of minimums.
>> It all depends.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>> Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or
> 400 ft above minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One
> caution...having another pilot along is actually a detriment unless you
> have practiced flying together and coordinating cockpit resource
> management. Otherwise neither one knows what to expect and who should be
> responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable with what
> other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s) as tight to
> centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of
> time..don't chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to
> center. Of course GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could
> purposely fly one dot right enroute, to avoid being dead center on
> airway with someone else, just go back to centered as soon as you
> transition to approach plate.
>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
> <jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>> This brings up another question. What are people using for
> "personal minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have
> circling minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family
> they will only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable
> shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel
> comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at
> least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for
> conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
> Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II
> non-V).
>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>>>>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>>>>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>>>>> you're having a good time!
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
> (after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who
> need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable
> platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a
> good IFR GPS.
>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FS: Heated Pitot and Mount |
I have a brand new Falcon Heated Pitot for sale with the standard
pitot mount. Falcon part number is AN5812, Aircraft Spruce Part Number
10-00984 and sells for $476.95 and the standard mount, Aircraft Spruce
Part Number 10-01063 and sells for $31.75. Total Cost = $508.70, I'll
sell for $400 and I'll pay shipping in the continental US.
Email if interested, thanks!
-Mike Kraus
Sent from my iPhone
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
My personal minimum is the same as the published minimum. Then I
immediately go to my alternate. If an approach looks close, I will give
greater consideration to my alternate on planning. I never understood
personal minimums when applied to approaches. Fly the approach FULLY as
published. Then if you don't see the runway, go missed and fly to your
alternate.
My plan is if the weather looks close at my destination airport and that
airport does not have an ILS, I look for an alternate with an ILS. Then I
make one approach at my destination flying the approach FULLY. If it does
not work out, I fly to my alternate.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
>
> This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal
> minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling
> minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will only
> go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the approach
> when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel comfortable lower with
> another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at least for my info, would be
> single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for conversation, say it's an
> autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so
> the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> >
> > Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
> > earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
> > plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
> > you're having a good time!
> >
> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> > Jesse Saint wrote:
> >> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10 (after
> passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who need the
> extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable platform for
> IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a good IFR GPS.
> >> do not archive
> >> Jesse Saint
> >> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> >> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
> >> Cell: 352-427-0285
> >> Fax: 815-377-3694
> >> *
> >
>
>
> --
> William
> N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FS: AOA Pro from AFS |
I have a New Old Stock Advanced Flight Systems AOA Pro for sale. The
unit has been partially installed, but never powered up. All the
wiring is new and the harness is uncut as received from the factory.
The 'brain box' was mechanically installed in my project for the last
2 years, but never wired up. The display was mechanically installed,
but never wired or powered up. This unit sells for $1495 new, I'll
sell for an even $1,000 and I'll pay shipping in the continental US.
Email if interested
-Mike Kraus
Sent from my iPhone
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Good point, Tim...
One of my other rules is max fuel for IFR... It's really cheap
incremental insurance that you get 100% back if you don't use.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Olson [mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
Your attitude is a good one. I've had my scary experiences
during training too. Luckily nothing too awful since, but
I've been well "put in my place" by IFR flying, so I've
developed that healthy respect that keeps you alive. (hopefully)
The Autopilot is essential. Ya ya ya, you should be able
to hand fly. Fine, we all know that. But, when you
get task loaded, nothing helps more than hitting a couple
buttons until you can get your head together. You can't
blindly trust the autopilot, either, but it really should
be a requirement IMHO for single-pilot ops, to have one
on board that works. At least when ceilings are lower
than VFR. When I got my IFR ticket I don't think I had
an AP in the plane, but it was my first purchase before
I'd take the family in IMC. At the time, I spent $5-7000
for an S-Tec and it was money well spent. The TruTrak
is far nicer.
Those minimums aren't bad at all. It shows a good respect
for how bad things can go. And, your point about
improving or worsening weather is very good too.
Also relevant is your proximity to better conditions.
If you can fly 50 miles and have 1000' ceilings, or
do an approach where you are to 400', you at least
have good options.
Equipment wise, and I'm sure I'll be beat up for this, I
really think that the equipment in the panel adds to
the safety aspect. You really NEED to be good at knowing
where you are by looking at some needles, but it really
takes workload off if you have a working EFIS with
moving map and a fully depicted approach. In my case,
it also has HITS. I find that it's infinitely more
relaxing to fly an approach with the equipment installed,
as it was to fly the old way. Should you rely on it?
No, of course not, but I'll tell you what... I'll fly
approaches using my full EFIS/AP setup that I wouldn't
fly if it were INOP. If I'm flying around x/c IMC
and I lose my 3 EFIS's (or is that EFii?)
(not likely but sure possible) I would probably not
keep the same destination as I would if I had the
equipment. Why should you have to? Myself, I'd make
sure I knew where the WX was better, and I'd try to
make a reasonable re-route to a good airport with a full
ILS, and get on the ground a.s.a.p. if I can find an
airport with > 1000' ceilings nearby. Luckily with the
RV-10, miles go by so fast that it's probably easy to do
most of the time. Sure, I could continue and fly on my
backups (which are still far better than what I had when
I was flying all round gauges), but I would choose safety
first and go to a good or preferrably VFR destination if
I have a good option.
If you get decked out with a good panel and that AP
you love, and you stay current, your feelings on
minimums will probably change slowly over time. But your
worry then should be on what you'll do when THAT stuff
doesn't work...because that's where you'll get bit.
By using your head, you can make good decisions.
Regarding the sorcerer...it's a great AP, but not always
necessary, depending on your other equipment. In my case
I get 99% of the functionality, but it's managed by
the EFIS. The sorcerer is nicer though, in that it's better
if you lose your EFIS. So it's a good choice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
Perry, Phil wrote:
>
> When I was polishing for my IFR checkride I had a scary experience (in
> IMC - partial panel) where the airplane turned 180 degrees without
being
> noticed by me or my instructor. ATC finally came on the radio to
check
> on us about the time I realized we were headed the opposite direction.
> I was pretty confident in the clouds up until that point, but that one
> experience absolutely destroyed any confidence I had and soured any
> desire to challenge myself in the clouds. For me the scariest part is
> that I was probably as proficient as I'll ever be at the time I was
> polishing for the real checkride.
>
> At that moment, I realized I will always fly in real IMC with a good
> autopilot and practice all other procedures by hand flying the
airplane
> to maintain proficiency. I'm not a professional pilot who flies in
the
> clouds every week and I don't pretend to be one. So I'm not
embarrassed
> to admit the use of the autopilot, avoiding hand flying, and doing
what
> I can to make the flight safer.
>
> When it comes to minimums, I'll go with 700' to a precision approach
and
> 1000' to a non-precision approach. (Reference my scary experience
above
> and it correlates to my conservative minimums.) This allows some room
> if the forecast is completely wrong. It also allows some margin in
the
> event there are autopilot issues and I may not be flying an absolutely
> perfect approach setup to hit the MAP at minimums.
>
> Once the -10 is up and running, I really expect those minimums to drop
> since it will be easier for me to stay current. But I'll always have
a
> lot of respect for the clouds.
>
> By the way, my RV-10 will have a Sorcerer auto-pilot. You can buy an
> engine that's overkill and you can buy a panel that's overkill -but
you
> just can't buy an autopilot that's overkill. It's impossible. :)
>
> Phil "Fraidy Cat" Perry
> (I did that for you Bill)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Saint [mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:52 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>
>
> Interesting feedback from all. I was actually expecting much more
> conservative/cautious responses. All of the local pilots I talked to
> say something like, "I only go if I have circling minimums at origin
and
> destination" or "my minimum is 1,000 AGL". I realize it depends a
great
> deal on currency as well as equipment. For example, in an RV-10 with
a
> Sorcerer auto pilot driven by a GNS-430W, I would feel comfortable
> shooting an approach to minimums if I have Troy (pilot friend who I
> trained along side) with me. I would go for minimums plus 100-200
> alone. With a Dynon auto-pilot, I would go minimums plus 200 with
Troy
> and probably circling to 1,000 alone. In the Archer with GPSS and
> Altitude Hold and steam gauges, I would go the same as the RV-10 with
a
> Dynon. In the C-172 with minimum IFR instrumentation, I would
probably
> be hesitant to even do any IFR enroute, but would definitely want MVFR
> or VFR at the origin and destination.
>
> Also, having in-flight weather (496, 696, etc) is almost an absolute
> personal requirement. My hat goes off to those of you who used to fly
> IFR X-Country with nothing but VOR's and ADF (what is that anyway).
>
> I do completely agree that a second pilot does not necessarily make
you
> safer. I was referring to a second pilot who I have flown with a lot.
> Someone who just helps watch altitudes, calls out when out of clouds,
> tunes radios if I ask him to (not otherwise), etc. It doesn't have to
> be a pilot necessarily, but needs to be someone I am comfortable
getting
> added information from. It sure is nice to be able to fly the
airplane
> and have someone else pull up a plate or tune in an ATIS or something
> like that.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with Kelly, you do what you're comfortable with. Also,
>> it depends on the weather. I don't feel bad going to minimums
>> if the rest of the weather isn't horrible, (i.e. not tons of
>> wind and turbulence), but if it were going to be heavy rain
>> or something like that, I would either use higher minimums
>> or maybe not shoot the approach at all. With heavy rain is
>> often thunderstorms. So minimums would vary from day to day.
>> This time of year I am much more conservative too, because
>> up here it's icing all over the place. I like to know
>> I either have a very thin layer to go through, or lots of
>> clear sky underneath, because I really don't want to do a
>> whole approach where I have to descend 6,000' through
>> clouds with icing potential. (not known icing...potential icing..
>> we shouldn't fly at all in known icing but any cloud near/below
>> freezing is potential icing)
>>
>> I agree too that while another pilot makes you feel comfortable,
>> some of the most F-'d up situations I've been in while IFR
>> were with other pilots. If you have one that only does
>> minimal and helpful things, like monitor your horizon, and
>> maybe hold things and open charts, great. Too much help isn't
>> always good unless it's quality help.
>>
>> So minimums are a very flexible thing. In general, if I'm
>> up to par in "comfort" from recent practice, I don't mind
>> going down to minimums. Otherwise it's nice to have at
>> least 100'-200' of added padding in there, and in certain
>> situations much more. On a turbulent windy day, I may
>> choose an alternate if I can't get within 300' of minimums.
>> It all depends.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Kelly McMullen wrote:
<kellym@aviating.com>
>>> Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or
> 400 ft above minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One
> caution...having another pilot along is actually a detriment unless
you
> have practiced flying together and coordinating cockpit resource
> management. Otherwise neither one knows what to expect and who should
be
> responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable with what
> other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s) as tight to
> centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of
> time..don't chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to
> center. Of course GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could
> purposely fly one dot right enroute, to avoid being dead center on
> airway with someone else, just go back to centered as soon as you
> transition to approach plate.
>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
> <jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>> This brings up another question. What are people using for
> "personal minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have
> circling minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family
> they will only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable
> shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel
> comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at
> least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just
for
> conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
> Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II
> non-V).
>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>>>>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>>>>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>>>>> you're having a good time!
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
> (after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who
> need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable
> platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a
> good IFR GPS.
>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
One of the five extra requirements to fly the Citation single pilot is a
working A/P before takeoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>
> Your attitude is a good one. I've had my scary experiences
> during training too. Luckily nothing too awful since, but
> I've been well "put in my place" by IFR flying, so I've
> developed that healthy respect that keeps you alive. (hopefully)
>
> The Autopilot is essential. Ya ya ya, you should be able
> to hand fly. Fine, we all know that. But, when you
> get task loaded, nothing helps more than hitting a couple
> buttons until you can get your head together. You can't
> blindly trust the autopilot, either, but it really should
> be a requirement IMHO for single-pilot ops, to have one
> on board that works. At least when ceilings are lower
> than VFR. When I got my IFR ticket I don't think I had
> an AP in the plane, but it was my first purchase before
> I'd take the family in IMC. At the time, I spent $5-7000
> for an S-Tec and it was money well spent. The TruTrak
> is far nicer.
>
> Those minimums aren't bad at all. It shows a good respect
> for how bad things can go. And, your point about
> improving or worsening weather is very good too.
> Also relevant is your proximity to better conditions.
> If you can fly 50 miles and have 1000' ceilings, or
> do an approach where you are to 400', you at least
> have good options.
>
> Equipment wise, and I'm sure I'll be beat up for this, I
> really think that the equipment in the panel adds to
> the safety aspect. You really NEED to be good at knowing
> where you are by looking at some needles, but it really
> takes workload off if you have a working EFIS with
> moving map and a fully depicted approach. In my case,
> it also has HITS. I find that it's infinitely more
> relaxing to fly an approach with the equipment installed,
> as it was to fly the old way. Should you rely on it?
> No, of course not, but I'll tell you what... I'll fly
> approaches using my full EFIS/AP setup that I wouldn't
> fly if it were INOP. If I'm flying around x/c IMC
> and I lose my 3 EFIS's (or is that EFii?)
> (not likely but sure possible) I would probably not
> keep the same destination as I would if I had the
> equipment. Why should you have to? Myself, I'd make
> sure I knew where the WX was better, and I'd try to
> make a reasonable re-route to a good airport with a full
> ILS, and get on the ground a.s.a.p. if I can find an
> airport with > 1000' ceilings nearby. Luckily with the
> RV-10, miles go by so fast that it's probably easy to do
> most of the time. Sure, I could continue and fly on my
> backups (which are still far better than what I had when
> I was flying all round gauges), but I would choose safety
> first and go to a good or preferrably VFR destination if
> I have a good option.
>
> If you get decked out with a good panel and that AP
> you love, and you stay current, your feelings on
> minimums will probably change slowly over time. But your
> worry then should be on what you'll do when THAT stuff
> doesn't work...because that's where you'll get bit.
> By using your head, you can make good decisions.
>
> Regarding the sorcerer...it's a great AP, but not always
> necessary, depending on your other equipment. In my case
> I get 99% of the functionality, but it's managed by
> the EFIS. The sorcerer is nicer though, in that it's better
> if you lose your EFIS. So it's a good choice.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>
>
> Perry, Phil wrote:
>>
>> When I was polishing for my IFR checkride I had a scary experience (in
>> IMC - partial panel) where the airplane turned 180 degrees without being
>> noticed by me or my instructor. ATC finally came on the radio to check
>> on us about the time I realized we were headed the opposite direction.
>> I was pretty confident in the clouds up until that point, but that one
>> experience absolutely destroyed any confidence I had and soured any
>> desire to challenge myself in the clouds. For me the scariest part is
>> that I was probably as proficient as I'll ever be at the time I was
>> polishing for the real checkride.
>>
>> At that moment, I realized I will always fly in real IMC with a good
>> autopilot and practice all other procedures by hand flying the airplane
>> to maintain proficiency. I'm not a professional pilot who flies in the
>> clouds every week and I don't pretend to be one. So I'm not embarrassed
>> to admit the use of the autopilot, avoiding hand flying, and doing what
>> I can to make the flight safer.
>>
>> When it comes to minimums, I'll go with 700' to a precision approach and
>> 1000' to a non-precision approach. (Reference my scary experience above
>> and it correlates to my conservative minimums.) This allows some room
>> if the forecast is completely wrong. It also allows some margin in the
>> event there are autopilot issues and I may not be flying an absolutely
>> perfect approach setup to hit the MAP at minimums.
>>
>> Once the -10 is up and running, I really expect those minimums to drop
>> since it will be easier for me to stay current. But I'll always have a
>> lot of respect for the clouds.
>>
>> By the way, my RV-10 will have a Sorcerer auto-pilot. You can buy an
>> engine that's overkill and you can buy a panel that's overkill -but you
>> just can't buy an autopilot that's overkill. It's impossible. :)
>>
>> Phil "Fraidy Cat" Perry
>> (I did that for you Bill)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jesse Saint [mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com] Sent: Wednesday,
>> December 02, 2009 9:52 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>>
>>
>> Interesting feedback from all. I was actually expecting much more
>> conservative/cautious responses. All of the local pilots I talked to
>> say something like, "I only go if I have circling minimums at origin and
>> destination" or "my minimum is 1,000 AGL". I realize it depends a great
>> deal on currency as well as equipment. For example, in an RV-10 with a
>> Sorcerer auto pilot driven by a GNS-430W, I would feel comfortable
>> shooting an approach to minimums if I have Troy (pilot friend who I
>> trained along side) with me. I would go for minimums plus 100-200
>> alone. With a Dynon auto-pilot, I would go minimums plus 200 with Troy
>> and probably circling to 1,000 alone. In the Archer with GPSS and
>> Altitude Hold and steam gauges, I would go the same as the RV-10 with a
>> Dynon. In the C-172 with minimum IFR instrumentation, I would probably
>> be hesitant to even do any IFR enroute, but would definitely want MVFR
>> or VFR at the origin and destination.
>>
>> Also, having in-flight weather (496, 696, etc) is almost an absolute
>> personal requirement. My hat goes off to those of you who used to fly
>> IFR X-Country with nothing but VOR's and ADF (what is that anyway).
>>
>> I do completely agree that a second pilot does not necessarily make you
>> safer. I was referring to a second pilot who I have flown with a lot.
>> Someone who just helps watch altitudes, calls out when out of clouds,
>> tunes radios if I ask him to (not otherwise), etc. It doesn't have to
>> be a pilot necessarily, but needs to be someone I am comfortable getting
>> added information from. It sure is nice to be able to fly the airplane
>> and have someone else pull up a plate or tune in an ATIS or something
>> like that.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Kelly, you do what you're comfortable with. Also,
>>> it depends on the weather. I don't feel bad going to minimums
>>> if the rest of the weather isn't horrible, (i.e. not tons of
>>> wind and turbulence), but if it were going to be heavy rain
>>> or something like that, I would either use higher minimums
>>> or maybe not shoot the approach at all. With heavy rain is
>>> often thunderstorms. So minimums would vary from day to day.
>>> This time of year I am much more conservative too, because
>>> up here it's icing all over the place. I like to know
>>> I either have a very thin layer to go through, or lots of
>>> clear sky underneath, because I really don't want to do a
>>> whole approach where I have to descend 6,000' through
>>> clouds with icing potential. (not known icing...potential icing..
>>> we shouldn't fly at all in known icing but any cloud near/below
>>> freezing is potential icing)
>>>
>>> I agree too that while another pilot makes you feel comfortable,
>>> some of the most F-'d up situations I've been in while IFR
>>> were with other pilots. If you have one that only does
>>> minimal and helpful things, like monitor your horizon, and
>>> maybe hold things and open charts, great. Too much help isn't
>>> always good unless it's quality help.
>>>
>>> So minimums are a very flexible thing. In general, if I'm
>>> up to par in "comfort" from recent practice, I don't mind
>>> going down to minimums. Otherwise it's nice to have at
>>> least 100'-200' of added padding in there, and in certain
>>> situations much more. On a turbulent windy day, I may
>>> choose an alternate if I can't get within 300' of minimums.
>>> It all depends.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>> Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or
>> 400 ft above minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One
>> caution...having another pilot along is actually a detriment unless you
>> have practiced flying together and coordinating cockpit resource
>> management. Otherwise neither one knows what to expect and who should be
>> responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable with what
>> other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s) as tight to
>> centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of
>> time..don't chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to
>> center. Of course GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could
>> purposely fly one dot right enroute, to avoid being dead center on
>> airway with someone else, just go back to centered as soon as you
>> transition to approach plate.
>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> <jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>> This brings up another question. What are people using for
>> "personal minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have
>> circling minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family
>> they will only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable
>> shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel
>> comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at
>> least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for
>> conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
>> Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II
>> non-V).
>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>>>>>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>>>>>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>>>>>> you're having a good time!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
>> (after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who
>> need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable
>> platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a
>> good IFR GPS.
>>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yeah, I use that theory for most flights....why not go
full fuel if you can avoid a hefty price at least.
There is so much excess power that it doesn't pay to
do the "fill to the tabs" thing unless you're really
carrying some heavy loads.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Perry, Phil wrote:
>
> Good point, Tim...
>
> One of my other rules is max fuel for IFR... It's really cheap
> incremental insurance that you get 100% back if you don't use.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Olson [mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:14 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>
>
> Your attitude is a good one. I've had my scary experiences
> during training too. Luckily nothing too awful since, but
> I've been well "put in my place" by IFR flying, so I've
> developed that healthy respect that keeps you alive. (hopefully)
>
> The Autopilot is essential. Ya ya ya, you should be able
> to hand fly. Fine, we all know that. But, when you
> get task loaded, nothing helps more than hitting a couple
> buttons until you can get your head together. You can't
> blindly trust the autopilot, either, but it really should
> be a requirement IMHO for single-pilot ops, to have one
> on board that works. At least when ceilings are lower
> than VFR. When I got my IFR ticket I don't think I had
> an AP in the plane, but it was my first purchase before
> I'd take the family in IMC. At the time, I spent $5-7000
> for an S-Tec and it was money well spent. The TruTrak
> is far nicer.
>
> Those minimums aren't bad at all. It shows a good respect
> for how bad things can go. And, your point about
> improving or worsening weather is very good too.
> Also relevant is your proximity to better conditions.
> If you can fly 50 miles and have 1000' ceilings, or
> do an approach where you are to 400', you at least
> have good options.
>
> Equipment wise, and I'm sure I'll be beat up for this, I
> really think that the equipment in the panel adds to
> the safety aspect. You really NEED to be good at knowing
> where you are by looking at some needles, but it really
> takes workload off if you have a working EFIS with
> moving map and a fully depicted approach. In my case,
> it also has HITS. I find that it's infinitely more
> relaxing to fly an approach with the equipment installed,
> as it was to fly the old way. Should you rely on it?
> No, of course not, but I'll tell you what... I'll fly
> approaches using my full EFIS/AP setup that I wouldn't
> fly if it were INOP. If I'm flying around x/c IMC
> and I lose my 3 EFIS's (or is that EFii?)
> (not likely but sure possible) I would probably not
> keep the same destination as I would if I had the
> equipment. Why should you have to? Myself, I'd make
> sure I knew where the WX was better, and I'd try to
> make a reasonable re-route to a good airport with a full
> ILS, and get on the ground a.s.a.p. if I can find an
> airport with > 1000' ceilings nearby. Luckily with the
> RV-10, miles go by so fast that it's probably easy to do
> most of the time. Sure, I could continue and fly on my
> backups (which are still far better than what I had when
> I was flying all round gauges), but I would choose safety
> first and go to a good or preferrably VFR destination if
> I have a good option.
>
> If you get decked out with a good panel and that AP
> you love, and you stay current, your feelings on
> minimums will probably change slowly over time. But your
> worry then should be on what you'll do when THAT stuff
> doesn't work...because that's where you'll get bit.
> By using your head, you can make good decisions.
>
> Regarding the sorcerer...it's a great AP, but not always
> necessary, depending on your other equipment. In my case
> I get 99% of the functionality, but it's managed by
> the EFIS. The sorcerer is nicer though, in that it's better
> if you lose your EFIS. So it's a good choice.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>
>
>
> Perry, Phil wrote:
>>
>> When I was polishing for my IFR checkride I had a scary experience (in
>> IMC - partial panel) where the airplane turned 180 degrees without
> being
>> noticed by me or my instructor. ATC finally came on the radio to
> check
>> on us about the time I realized we were headed the opposite direction.
>> I was pretty confident in the clouds up until that point, but that one
>> experience absolutely destroyed any confidence I had and soured any
>> desire to challenge myself in the clouds. For me the scariest part is
>> that I was probably as proficient as I'll ever be at the time I was
>> polishing for the real checkride.
>>
>> At that moment, I realized I will always fly in real IMC with a good
>> autopilot and practice all other procedures by hand flying the
> airplane
>> to maintain proficiency. I'm not a professional pilot who flies in
> the
>> clouds every week and I don't pretend to be one. So I'm not
> embarrassed
>> to admit the use of the autopilot, avoiding hand flying, and doing
> what
>> I can to make the flight safer.
>>
>> When it comes to minimums, I'll go with 700' to a precision approach
> and
>> 1000' to a non-precision approach. (Reference my scary experience
> above
>> and it correlates to my conservative minimums.) This allows some room
>> if the forecast is completely wrong. It also allows some margin in
> the
>> event there are autopilot issues and I may not be flying an absolutely
>> perfect approach setup to hit the MAP at minimums.
>>
>> Once the -10 is up and running, I really expect those minimums to drop
>> since it will be easier for me to stay current. But I'll always have
> a
>> lot of respect for the clouds.
>>
>> By the way, my RV-10 will have a Sorcerer auto-pilot. You can buy an
>> engine that's overkill and you can buy a panel that's overkill -but
> you
>> just can't buy an autopilot that's overkill. It's impossible. :)
>>
>> Phil "Fraidy Cat" Perry
>> (I did that for you Bill)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jesse Saint [mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:52 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>>
>>
>> Interesting feedback from all. I was actually expecting much more
>> conservative/cautious responses. All of the local pilots I talked to
>> say something like, "I only go if I have circling minimums at origin
> and
>> destination" or "my minimum is 1,000 AGL". I realize it depends a
> great
>> deal on currency as well as equipment. For example, in an RV-10 with
> a
>> Sorcerer auto pilot driven by a GNS-430W, I would feel comfortable
>> shooting an approach to minimums if I have Troy (pilot friend who I
>> trained along side) with me. I would go for minimums plus 100-200
>> alone. With a Dynon auto-pilot, I would go minimums plus 200 with
> Troy
>> and probably circling to 1,000 alone. In the Archer with GPSS and
>> Altitude Hold and steam gauges, I would go the same as the RV-10 with
> a
>> Dynon. In the C-172 with minimum IFR instrumentation, I would
> probably
>> be hesitant to even do any IFR enroute, but would definitely want MVFR
>> or VFR at the origin and destination.
>>
>> Also, having in-flight weather (496, 696, etc) is almost an absolute
>> personal requirement. My hat goes off to those of you who used to fly
>> IFR X-Country with nothing but VOR's and ADF (what is that anyway).
>>
>> I do completely agree that a second pilot does not necessarily make
> you
>> safer. I was referring to a second pilot who I have flown with a lot.
>> Someone who just helps watch altitudes, calls out when out of clouds,
>> tunes radios if I ask him to (not otherwise), etc. It doesn't have to
>> be a pilot necessarily, but needs to be someone I am comfortable
> getting
>> added information from. It sure is nice to be able to fly the
> airplane
>> and have someone else pull up a plate or tune in an ATIS or something
>> like that.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Kelly, you do what you're comfortable with. Also,
>>> it depends on the weather. I don't feel bad going to minimums
>>> if the rest of the weather isn't horrible, (i.e. not tons of
>>> wind and turbulence), but if it were going to be heavy rain
>>> or something like that, I would either use higher minimums
>>> or maybe not shoot the approach at all. With heavy rain is
>>> often thunderstorms. So minimums would vary from day to day.
>>> This time of year I am much more conservative too, because
>>> up here it's icing all over the place. I like to know
>>> I either have a very thin layer to go through, or lots of
>>> clear sky underneath, because I really don't want to do a
>>> whole approach where I have to descend 6,000' through
>>> clouds with icing potential. (not known icing...potential icing..
>>> we shouldn't fly at all in known icing but any cloud near/below
>>> freezing is potential icing)
>>>
>>> I agree too that while another pilot makes you feel comfortable,
>>> some of the most F-'d up situations I've been in while IFR
>>> were with other pilots. If you have one that only does
>>> minimal and helpful things, like monitor your horizon, and
>>> maybe hold things and open charts, great. Too much help isn't
>>> always good unless it's quality help.
>>>
>>> So minimums are a very flexible thing. In general, if I'm
>>> up to par in "comfort" from recent practice, I don't mind
>>> going down to minimums. Otherwise it's nice to have at
>>> least 100'-200' of added padding in there, and in certain
>>> situations much more. On a turbulent windy day, I may
>>> choose an alternate if I can't get within 300' of minimums.
>>> It all depends.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> Kelly McMullen wrote:
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>>> Do what you are comfortable with. Start with something like 200 or
>> 400 ft above minimums and adjust as you gain experience. One
>> caution...having another pilot along is actually a detriment unless
> you
>> have practiced flying together and coordinating cockpit resource
>> management. Otherwise neither one knows what to expect and who should
> be
>> responsible, whether to speak up or not if not comfortable with what
>> other pilot is doing. Also, practice to keep nav needle(s) as tight to
>> centered as you can, don't accept one dot out for any length of
>> time..don't chase it, just stop movement and slowly correct back to
>> center. Of course GPS course is tighter and if you want, you could
>> purposely fly one dot right enroute, to avoid being dead center on
>> airway with someone else, just go back to centered as soon as you
>> transition to approach plate.
>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> <jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>> This brings up another question. What are people using for
>> "personal minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have
>> circling minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family
>> they will only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable
>> shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel
>> comfortable lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at
>> least for my info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just
> for
>> conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
>> Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II
>> non-V).
>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>>>>>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>>>>>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>>>>>> you're having a good time!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
>> (after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who
>> need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable
>> platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a
>> good IFR GPS.
>>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>>>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>>>>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I did 100% of my IMC flying without an AP but I probably won't do
anymore intentionally.
I agree it should be considered required for us non-pros. Not because
we are amateurs
but because most of us don't fly enough to stay truly proficient with
those kinds of operations.
I know I can hand fly a simple, slow, draggy Maule in 'hard' turbulent
IMC at a time when
I flew and filed practically EVERY week. It's nice to know I can do it,
but I'm probably done with it.
I'm sure those freight dog types could do it safely all day long. It's
called work.
I'd give a lot for a mission and the $$ to fly every week again!
Bill "never learned to fly to ATP standards on purpose" Watson
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> The Autopilot is essential. Ya ya ya, you should be able
> to hand fly. Fine, we all know that. But, when you
> get task loaded, nothing helps more than hitting a couple
> buttons until you can get your head together. You can't
> blindly trust the autopilot, either, but it really should
> be a requirement IMHO for single-pilot ops, to have one
> on board that works. At least when ceilings are lower
> than VFR. When I got my IFR ticket I don't think I had
> an AP in the plane, but it was my first purchase before
> I'd take the family in IMC. At the time, I spent $5-7000
> for an S-Tec and it was money well spent. The TruTrak
> is far nicer.
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I don't mean to offend anyone, but:
IMHO you should not be flying IFR unless you are personally current. I don't mean
legally; I mean that at that moment, you could pass a check ride to PTS standards,
including hand-flown approaches to minimums. So I don't like the idea
of personal minimums; either you can fly to published minimums, or you can't (in
which case you shouldn't be up there at all). Obviously you need to consider
the weather, especially turbulence, in deciding whether to do the approach at
all. Just as the PTS allows some leeway for worse than average conditions. BTW,
the hardest part is the last 200 vertical feet, if the visibility is only
1/2 mile - especially if it's dark. And you need to hand fly that anyway, at least
at some point.
I'm a part time CFII, and give a fair number of IPC's. My observation: pilots who
come to me are rusty; but those pilots who regularly fly behind an autopilot
are really rusty. I plan to put an autopilot in my -10, it's a great fatigue
reliever. But I'm not sure I will couple it for approaches. Here in California
I just don't get that much actual, I need to hand fly every one to keep current
(plus some hood practice, for unusual attitudes, steep turns, etc.).
For 2 pilots (or even a passenger you trust): You are the PIC, and you should clearly
tell the copilot what you expect. I find the following works well for an
ILS: I ask the copilot to call out altitudes above DA(H) (1000 feet to go; 500'
to go; 200' to go; DA) (I watch too!). I also ask the copilot to call out
"runway in sight" or "approach lights in sight". PIC flies the gauges, and does
not look up until he hears the copilot has the runway or lights. If you reach
DA(H) without hearing that, you start the miss, never leaving the instruments.
PS What kind of a cfii would not notice the aircraft turning 180 degrees?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275819#275819
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
-Here's my take. Single engine 500ft,- mult-engine minimums. It's only
because I want a couple more- seconds to see, if I have an engine failure
enroute. 1000' would even be better. I don't have to be anywhere. It's up
to you to do your own risk management.
-Just remember it doesn't happen to you, until it does.
Patrick Thyssen
-
-
--- On Wed, 1/2/09, David McNeill <dlm46007@cox.net> wrote:
From: David McNeill <dlm46007@cox.net>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: IFR
When I started flying IFR in IMC (1979) alternate minimums must be forecast
for the destiniation and of course the alternate. I was hand flying a
C177RG; autopilot was INOP (never worked from new). I now use published
minimums but I don't accept ice enroute (perhaps a little on IMC climb out
or on IMC approach to assured landing). Also I an more inclined to go to
minimums by myself than with any non pilot passengers. Of course now its
easy with the Cheltons, GPS and VSGV. Back then it was dual VORs, single GS
and Strikefinder and hand flying.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
This brings up another question.- What are people using for "personal
minimums"?- Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling
minimums.- Others say 1,000 feet.- Some say that with family they will
only
go if their destination is VFR.- I felt comfortable shooting the approach
when the METAR was MVFR.- I would certainly feel comfortable lower with
another pilot than I would solo.- This pole, at least for my info, would
be
single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for conversation, say it's an
autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so
the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
> earned the lower insurance besides. :)- You're right, it's a plane
> that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights.- Glad you're having a good
> time!
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10 (after
passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago).- For those who need the
extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable platform for
IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a good IFR GPS.
>> do not archive
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>> *
>
>
>
>
le, List Admin.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I've got a chrome 24v heated pitot and extension/mount I'll sell for $250 +
actual shipping charges. Was on a certified airplane. Looks like new and
is georgeous!
I was going to use it on my ten but since I'm not IFR certified, and never
will be, decided to go with stainless 1/4 tubing instead...plus the tubing
is lighter. Pics available.
Chuck
805 878-1922
Santa Maria, CA
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a pilot shouldn't be able to
hand fly the airplane to minimums; but just suggesting that the use of
the autopilot tremendously reduces risk. The AP doesn't get distracted,
doesn't have to flip charts, and doesn't have to press buttons in
turbulence. It's a valuable tool to greatly reduce the workload and
significantly reduce risk.
The higher personal minimums are simply a way to manage the environment
in which we choose to take risks. The good thing about flying is that
we have the opportunity to choose the weather - just not the time. We
get to choose the operating environment that lets us handle any issues
(missed forecasts, INOP AP's, INOP EFIS, power failures, .....) or
combination of issues when @$@! hits the fan.
I completely agree that you should be prepared to hand fly an approach
to minimums. But because a pilot can fly it by hand doesn't mean it's
smart. We owe it to our families, friends, and fellow pilots to use all
the tools we can to reduce the risks.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Turner [mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: IFR
I don't mean to offend anyone, but:
IMHO you should not be flying IFR unless you are personally current. I
don't mean legally; I mean that at that moment, you could pass a check
ride to PTS standards, including hand-flown approaches to minimums. So I
don't like the idea of personal minimums; either you can fly to
published minimums, or you can't (in which case you shouldn't be up
there at all). Obviously you need to consider the weather, especially
turbulence, in deciding whether to do the approach at all. Just as the
PTS allows some leeway for worse than average conditions. BTW, the
hardest part is the last 200 vertical feet, if the visibility is only
1/2 mile - especially if it's dark. And you need to hand fly that
anyway, at least at some point.
I'm a part time CFII, and give a fair number of IPC's. My observation:
pilots who come to me are rusty; but those pilots who regularly fly
behind an autopilot are really rusty. I plan to put an autopilot in my
-10, it's a great fatigue reliever. But I'm not sure I will couple it
for approaches. Here in California I just don't get that much actual, I
need to hand fly every one to keep current (plus some hood practice, for
unusual attitudes, steep turns, etc.).
For 2 pilots (or even a passenger you trust): You are the PIC, and you
should clearly tell the copilot what you expect. I find the following
works well for an ILS: I ask the copilot to call out altitudes above
DA(H) (1000 feet to go; 500' to go; 200' to go; DA) (I watch too!). I
also ask the copilot to call out "runway in sight" or "approach lights
in sight". PIC flies the gauges, and does not look up until he hears the
copilot has the runway or lights. If you reach DA(H) without hearing
that, you start the miss, never leaving the instruments.
PS What kind of a cfii would not notice the aircraft turning 180
degrees?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275819#275819
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Let me rephrase that for a second...
We get to choose the weather forecast - just not the time.
Phil <-- Brain operating at a different speed than fingers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Perry, Phil
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: IFR
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a pilot shouldn't be able to
hand fly the airplane to minimums; but just suggesting that the use of
the autopilot tremendously reduces risk. The AP doesn't get distracted,
doesn't have to flip charts, and doesn't have to press buttons in
turbulence. It's a valuable tool to greatly reduce the workload and
significantly reduce risk.
The higher personal minimums are simply a way to manage the environment
in which we choose to take risks. The good thing about flying is that
we have the opportunity to choose the weather - just not the time. We
get to choose the operating environment that lets us handle any issues
(missed forecasts, INOP AP's, INOP EFIS, power failures, .....) or
combination of issues when @$@! hits the fan.
I completely agree that you should be prepared to hand fly an approach
to minimums. But because a pilot can fly it by hand doesn't mean it's
smart. We owe it to our families, friends, and fellow pilots to use all
the tools we can to reduce the risks.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Turner [mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: IFR
I don't mean to offend anyone, but:
IMHO you should not be flying IFR unless you are personally current. I
don't mean legally; I mean that at that moment, you could pass a check
ride to PTS standards, including hand-flown approaches to minimums. So I
don't like the idea of personal minimums; either you can fly to
published minimums, or you can't (in which case you shouldn't be up
there at all). Obviously you need to consider the weather, especially
turbulence, in deciding whether to do the approach at all. Just as the
PTS allows some leeway for worse than average conditions. BTW, the
hardest part is the last 200 vertical feet, if the visibility is only
1/2 mile - especially if it's dark. And you need to hand fly that
anyway, at least at some point.
I'm a part time CFII, and give a fair number of IPC's. My observation:
pilots who come to me are rusty; but those pilots who regularly fly
behind an autopilot are really rusty. I plan to put an autopilot in my
-10, it's a great fatigue reliever. But I'm not sure I will couple it
for approaches. Here in California I just don't get that much actual, I
need to hand fly every one to keep current (plus some hood practice, for
unusual attitudes, steep turns, etc.).
For 2 pilots (or even a passenger you trust): You are the PIC, and you
should clearly tell the copilot what you expect. I find the following
works well for an ILS: I ask the copilot to call out altitudes above
DA(H) (1000 feet to go; 500' to go; 200' to go; DA) (I watch too!). I
also ask the copilot to call out "runway in sight" or "approach lights
in sight". PIC flies the gauges, and does not look up until he hears the
copilot has the runway or lights. If you reach DA(H) without hearing
that, you start the miss, never leaving the instruments.
PS What kind of a cfii would not notice the aircraft turning 180
degrees?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275819#275819
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jesse--I remember when I got my rating in the early 60's--my dad, old WWII (the
last good, winning one, unless you count Granada) pilot, said, put the ticket
on the glare shield and hope God see's it, as I was boarding my Tripacer with
a whistle stop tuning radio!!!! Try an approach to mins. (VFR with instructor)
and have him fail your instruments except your basic backup, add a little turbulence
and it can really change your minimums. 500/1 mile gives you some margin
of error. Your problem will be staying really current with winter and icing,
and with summer boomers in FL not very conducive to 'fun' IFR. Best and
most fun IFR I had was living on the west coast with marine layer, smooth clouds
with decent ceilings--made you feel like a real hot shot. Just be careful
our there. Larry
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275832#275832
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
"I completely agree that you should be prepared to hand fly an approach
to minimums. But because a pilot can fly it by hand doesn't mean it's
smart. We owe it to our families, friends, and fellow pilots to use all
the tools we can to reduce the risks."
I agree with this statement. It's certainly what the airlines do. But in the real
world, most GA pilots just don't get enough practice hand flying, nor do they
do the recurrent training the airlines do, so in fact they're not prepared
to hand fly. (I once had a pilot doing an IPC tell me that if the autopilot quit,
he would declare an emergency (in a 182!). Surely he was not up to standards,
but was betting his life on the autopilot).
So the question becomes, what is the greater risk: That I'll screw up a hand flown
approach so badly that it results in an accident? Or that I'll become so rusty
that an autopilot failure will lead to an accident? (Or that I'll be so out
of the loop that an accident results, even if the autopilot works.)
The last fatal ifr accident at my home airport (KLVK) was an autopilot/out of the
loop-induced one: pilot put the autopilot in descent mode and then just forgot
about it. Rusty pilots trusting autopilots often find themselves out of the
loop. So I do think it's important to stay really current, not just trust the
machines.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275839#275839
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I hope I'm not the only one that is not meaning this. On an approach, I
would not go missed 500 feet above the DH. I am referring to the ATIS
info at that or the nearest airport (or forecast on making the go or
no-go decision).
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:30 PM, William Curtis wrote:
> My personal minimum is the same as the published minimum. Then I
immediately go to my alternate. If an approach looks close, I will give
greater consideration to my alternate on planning. I never understood
personal minimums when applied to approaches. Fly the approach FULLY as
published. Then if you don't see the runway, go missed and fly to your
alternate.
>
> My plan is if the weather looks close at my destination airport and
that airport does not have an ILS, I look for an alternate with an ILS.
Then I make one approach at my destination flying the approach FULLY.
If it does not work out, I fly to my alternate.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
>
> This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal
minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling
minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will
only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the
approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel comfortable
lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at least for my
info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for
conversation, say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and
Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II
non-V).
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> >
> > Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
> > earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
> > plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
> > you're having a good time!
> >
> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> > Jesse Saint wrote:
> >> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
(after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those who
need the extra encouragement in building, this is an incredibly stable
platform for IFR flight, especially with a good autopilot driven by a
good IFR GPS.
> >> do not archive
> >> Jesse Saint
> >> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> >> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
> >> Cell: 352-427-0285
> >> Fax: 815-377-3694
> >> *
> >
>
>
> --
> William
> N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
There are fights worth fighting, but I wouldn't consider ANY war a "good
war" won or lost.
Please explain how 500/1 "give you some margin of error" when you are in the
clouds? Going missed at some arbitrary minimum requires more maneuvering
(and thus more risk) than just aligning the needles and continuing to
PUBLISHED minimums.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM, lbgjb10 <lbgjb@gnt.net> wrote:
>
> Jesse--I remember when I got my rating in the early 60's--my dad, old WWII
> (the last good, winning one, unless you count Granada) pilot, said, put the
> ticket on the glare shield and hope God see's it, as I was boarding my
> Tripacer with a whistle stop tuning radio!!!! Try an approach to mins. (VFR
> with instructor) and have him fail your instruments except your basic
> backup, add a little turbulence and it can really change your minimums.
> 500/1 mile gives you some margin of error. Your problem will be staying
> really current with winter and icing, and with summer boomers in FL not very
> conducive to 'fun' IFR. Best and most fun IFR I had was living on the west
> coast with marine layer, smooth clouds with decent ceilings--made you feel
> like a real hot shot. Just be careful our there. Larry
>
> --------
> Larry and Gayle N104LG
>
>
> --
> William
> N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
At the risk of increasing the firestorm here......
Personal minimums are what I require forecast (or actual) BEFORE I
will commit to plan a flight or start an approach.
These personal minimums will vary depending on lots of things guys
have mentioned in previous emails.
However, once I begin the approach, I fly it to the published minimums
and either land or go missed.
Loads of past experience in very fast, single seat airplanes taught us
to keep it very simple once the approach is started because your total
focus must be on flying the approach once you start it.
Trying to determine an artificial missed approach point other than the
published one you are flying will get you killed.......
grumpy
do not archive
On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:59 PM, William Curtis wrote:
> There are fights worth fighting, but I wouldn't consider ANY war a
> "good war" won or lost.
>
> Please explain how 500/1 "give you some margin of error" when you
> are in the clouds? Going missed at some arbitrary minimum requires
> more maneuvering (and thus more risk) than just aligning the needles
> and continuing to PUBLISHED minimums.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM, lbgjb10 <lbgjb@gnt.net> wrote:
>
> Jesse--I remember when I got my rating in the early 60's--my dad,
> old WWII (the last good, winning one, unless you count Granada)
> pilot, said, put the ticket on the glare shield and hope God see's
> it, as I was boarding my Tripacer with a whistle stop tuning
> radio!!!! Try an approach to mins. (VFR with instructor) and have
> him fail your instruments except your basic backup, add a little
> turbulence and it can really change your minimums. 500/1 mile gives
> you some margin of error. Your problem will be staying really
> current with winter and icing, and with summer boomers in FL not
> very conducive to 'fun' IFR. Best and most fun IFR I had was living
> on the west coast with marine layer, smooth clouds with decent
> ceilings--made you feel like a real hot shot. Just be careful our
> there. Larry
>
> --------
> Larry and Gayle N104LG
>
>
> --
> William
> N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Agreed. The AP is a great enroute tool to relax and study the alternatives
and approach material. Although my AP can fly the approaches to the MDA/DH,
I plan on using it for enroute only and to teach my family member non pilots
how to use it to get down if I were incapacitated. My first two approaches
in the 10 were to minimums and that unexpectedly.
Arriving at RNO during last summer, I expected the usual "cleared for the
visual" when the ATIS informed me that visibility was hovering about 1 1/4
mile in smoke. (the approach has been changed to have substantially higher
minimums.)The CA fires turned the visual into a minimum visibility ILS 16R.
This was a "vectors to final" with a B737 cleared for takeoff while I was
still 2-3 miles out and a B737 behind me being vectored back and forth
across the localizer because of the speed difference. When I called runway
in sight at about 1 mile, the B737 behind me was cleared to land. I made the
first high speed turnoff.
The second approach was at MYJ ; I was in the right seat allowing my VFR
fellow builder fly the aircraft on my II. It was severe clear until about 30
miles out of MYJ. We entered rain and cloud. MKC center gave MYJ as 400 OVC
and 1M in moderate rain. I was cleared for the RNAV 6 and began the approach
( a little fast) I told my left seater that I was going o call minimums and
that he was to look for the airport and take over and land the aircraft if
able. I called minimums and he said "your airplane"; I proceed to slip the
aircraft to the threshold and began flying level to reduce speed. His
immediate response was "Don't skid" (standing water on the runway). I
responded by answering "anti skid armed" we touched down about halfway down
the 5500 runway and the brakes were not required as the wind milling prop
slowed us nicely.
Neither approaches were flown with the AP. The approaches were to minimums.
Minimums were not expected. If you need an AP to fly an approach you
probably should not be in IMC. We fly with multiple backups for PFD, MFD,
EIS, and batteries but only one AP. Therefore the AP should be the backup
for the pilot acting as PIC.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Perry, Phil
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:38 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: IFR
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a pilot shouldn't be able to hand
fly the airplane to minimums; but just suggesting that the use of the
autopilot tremendously reduces risk. The AP doesn't get distracted, doesn't
have to flip charts, and doesn't have to press buttons in turbulence. It's
a valuable tool to greatly reduce the workload and significantly reduce
risk.
The higher personal minimums are simply a way to manage the environment in
which we choose to take risks. The good thing about flying is that we have
the opportunity to choose the weather - just not the time. We get to choose
the operating environment that lets us handle any issues (missed forecasts,
INOP AP's, INOP EFIS, power failures, .....) or combination of issues when
@$@! hits the fan.
I completely agree that you should be prepared to hand fly an approach to
minimums. But because a pilot can fly it by hand doesn't mean it's smart.
We owe it to our families, friends, and fellow pilots to use all the tools
we can to reduce the risks.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Turner [mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: IFR
I don't mean to offend anyone, but:
IMHO you should not be flying IFR unless you are personally current. I don't
mean legally; I mean that at that moment, you could pass a check ride to PTS
standards, including hand-flown approaches to minimums. So I don't like the
idea of personal minimums; either you can fly to published minimums, or you
can't (in which case you shouldn't be up there at all). Obviously you need
to consider the weather, especially turbulence, in deciding whether to do
the approach at all. Just as the PTS allows some leeway for worse than
average conditions. BTW, the hardest part is the last 200 vertical feet, if
the visibility is only
1/2 mile - especially if it's dark. And you need to hand fly that anyway, at
least at some point.
I'm a part time CFII, and give a fair number of IPC's. My observation:
pilots who come to me are rusty; but those pilots who regularly fly behind
an autopilot are really rusty. I plan to put an autopilot in my -10, it's a
great fatigue reliever. But I'm not sure I will couple it for approaches.
Here in California I just don't get that much actual, I need to hand fly
every one to keep current (plus some hood practice, for unusual attitudes,
steep turns, etc.).
For 2 pilots (or even a passenger you trust): You are the PIC, and you
should clearly tell the copilot what you expect. I find the following works
well for an ILS: I ask the copilot to call out altitudes above
DA(H) (1000 feet to go; 500' to go; 200' to go; DA) (I watch too!). I also
ask the copilot to call out "runway in sight" or "approach lights in sight".
PIC flies the gauges, and does not look up until he hears the copilot has
the runway or lights. If you reach DA(H) without hearing that, you start the
miss, never leaving the instruments.
PS What kind of a cfii would not notice the aircraft turning 180 degrees?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275819#275819
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Agreed: Many of us have reminders that we can set in the PFD so that The
word "MINIMUMS" is displayed visually and audibly though the EFIS.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Miller John
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
At the risk of increasing the firestorm here......
Personal minimums are what I require forecast (or actual) BEFORE I will
commit to plan a flight or start an approach.
These personal minimums will vary depending on lots of things guys have
mentioned in previous emails.
However, once I begin the approach, I fly it to the published minimums and
either land or go missed.
Loads of past experience in very fast, single seat airplanes taught us to
keep it very simple once the approach is started because your total focus
must be on flying the approach once you start it.
Trying to determine an artificial missed approach point other than the
published one you are flying will get you killed.......
grumpy
do not archive
On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:59 PM, William Curtis wrote:
There are fights worth fighting, but I wouldn't consider ANY war a "good
war" won or lost.
Please explain how 500/1 "give you some margin of error" when you are in the
clouds? Going missed at some arbitrary minimum requires more maneuvering
(and thus more risk) than just aligning the needles and continuing to
PUBLISHED minimums.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM, lbgjb10 <lbgjb@gnt.net> wrote:
Jesse--I remember when I got my rating in the early 60's--my dad, old WWII
(the last good, winning one, unless you count Granada) pilot, said, put the
ticket on the glare shield and hope God see's it, as I was boarding my
Tripacer with a whistle stop tuning radio!!!! Try an approach to mins. (VFR
with instructor) and have him fail your instruments except your basic
backup, add a little turbulence and it can really change your minimums.
500/1 mile gives you some margin of error. Your problem will be staying
really current with winter and icing, and with summer boomers in FL not very
conducive to 'fun' IFR. Best and most fun IFR I had was living on the west
coast with marine layer, smooth clouds with decent ceilings--made you feel
like a real hot shot. Just be careful our there. Larry
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
--
William
N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
===================================
lectric.com
m">www.buildersbooks.com
ebuilthelp.com
w.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===================================
nics.com
===================================
=
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In an e-mail that should be on the list by the time you read this, I
said a short version of this very thing. I'm glad I'm not the only one
that was meaning that.
Overall, this has been a great discussion and very helpful to us (read
me) newbies to IFR flight.
My thoughts on the Autopilot issue is what has been mentioned here
before, as well as many other places. An Autopilot makes single pilot
IFR safe. With 2-pilot IFR, while it is important to clearly understand
who has control and what the copilot's responsibilities are, the nice
thing about a copilot is that he doesn't have to spend his time
controlling the airplane and can do things like look for the runway,
watch and call out altitudes, remind pilot of the needles (you're a
little low, come to the left a little) and verify frequencies and remind
the pilot of missed approach procedures, etc. When the autopilot is
handling the controls, then the single pilot can be watching the
needles, making sure they are telling the correct information (right
frequencies), keep up on missed approach procedures, watch the "magenta
line", look for runway lights, etc. It is very important to be on your
game as far as hand-flying, but that should either be practiced in VMC
or with another "safety" pilot, IMHO. When you're single pilot in IMC
on an approach and have an autopilot, I think it's a mistake not to use
it. I know most autopilots I have flown can micro-control a lot better
than I can and definitely keep the needles closer to the center. Also,
as long as they are working correctly, they don't have an inner ear to
mess them up.
I had a couple of incidental/accidental IFR experiences before I got my
ticket and they showed me how I would react if something unexpected
happened. The most obvious one was going from VMC to 0/0 in a very
short time (with pounding rain). I learned a lot from that, but mainly
learned that, while my heart did start beating a little faster, I just
calmly went to my instruments and gently put the number that had been on
the bottom to the top and came out of it. I was with ATC and when they
asked me if everything was OK, I just asked them if they had a window
through the weather that was actually as big as I had thought the one I
was going through was.
On my return from the solo IFR flight the other day, I had a CFII friend
with me and my son in the back seat. We had just finished a great meal
at Lambert's in Foley, AL. We were leveling off at 11,000 in IMC. It
was about 38 degrees, and we had clear air about 1,000 feet below me,
but I wanted to experience a little bit of true IMC enroute. As we
leveled off I heard a loud POP. After asking my son to look for a
quart-worth of oil splattered all over the baggage compartment he said,
"My balloon!!!" My friend said that when he first heard the POP he
looked right at me. He said I didn't react at all, but started looking
at engine gauges and checking to make sure everything was alright. If
the gauges tell me things are fine, and especially if they agree with
eachother, then it must be something else. The balloon realization put
my mind at ease, of course. All of this just taught me that in a
situation like that, I would do the right thing.
Sorry for being so long-winded. I'll shut up for another month or so
now...maybe.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 2, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Miller John wrote:
> At the risk of increasing the firestorm here......
>
> Personal minimums are what I require forecast (or actual) BEFORE I
will commit to plan a flight or start an approach.
>
> These personal minimums will vary depending on lots of things guys
have mentioned in previous emails.
>
> However, once I begin the approach, I fly it to the published minimums
and either land or go missed.
>
> Loads of past experience in very fast, single seat airplanes taught us
to keep it very simple once the approach is started because your total
focus must be on flying the approach once you start it.
>
> Trying to determine an artificial missed approach point other than the
published one you are flying will get you killed.......
>
> grumpy
>
> do not archive
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:59 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
>> There are fights worth fighting, but I wouldn't consider ANY war a
"good war" won or lost.
>>
>> Please explain how 500/1 "give you some margin of error" when you are
in the clouds? Going missed at some arbitrary minimum requires more
maneuvering (and thus more risk) than just aligning the needles and
continuing to PUBLISHED minimums.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM, lbgjb10 <lbgjb@gnt.net> wrote:
>>
>> Jesse--I remember when I got my rating in the early 60's--my dad, old
WWII (the last good, winning one, unless you count Granada) pilot, said,
put the ticket on the glare shield and hope God see's it, as I was
boarding my Tripacer with a whistle stop tuning radio!!!! Try an
approach to mins. (VFR with instructor) and have him fail your
instruments except your basic backup, add a little turbulence and it can
really change your minimums. 500/1 mile gives you some margin of error.
Your problem will be staying really current with winter and icing, and
with summer boomers in FL not very conducive to 'fun' IFR. Best and
most fun IFR I had was living on the west coast with marine layer,
smooth clouds with decent ceilings--made you feel like a real hot shot.
Just be careful our there. Larry
>>
>> --------
>> Larry and Gayle N104LG
>>
>>
>> --
>> William
>> N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>>
>>
>> ========================
===========
>> lectric.com
>> m">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ebuilthelp.com
>> w.matronics.com/contribution
>> ========================
===========
>> tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ========================
===========
>> nics.com
>> ========================
===========
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Very true, these "personal minimums" aren't something you do on the
fly, but that you use to decide if you're going to go ahead and
try the approach in the first place.
Also, people talk about "being current" and how important that is.
I'll tell you what...with advanced avionics, the hardest part
for some people will be in first understanding exactly...to the
details...how their system works. And after they've learned it,
having it ingrained into memory enough that they can actually
push all the right buttons to do the approach.
I fly approaches and enroute both using the Autopilot or hand
flying. When I fly approaches that are coupled, I still have
my hand on the stick. And, when I fly them completely hand
flown, it really isn't much different, with HITS, than if the
approach is AP coupled. For me, I'd rather make 100% sure that
I know how to properly execute the approach with the proper
buttons, because that's where I think people will screw up the
worst. These integrated systems are great...they do just what
you tell them to...and that's the problem. It isn't hard to
push the wrong button and suddenly have the whole approach
disappear, change, or something else go wrong.
I like hand flying and it's important you can do it well in IMC, but
at the same time, I think it's just as important to know your
electronics inside and out. That's where I think most people
would end up getting rusty unless you stay real current.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Miller John wrote:
> At the risk of increasing the firestorm here......
>
> Personal minimums are what I require forecast (or actual) BEFORE I will
> commit to plan a flight or start an approach.
>
> These personal minimums will vary depending on lots of things guys have
> mentioned in previous emails.
>
> However, once I begin the approach, I fly it to the published minimums
> and either land or go missed.
>
> Loads of past experience in very fast, single seat airplanes taught us
> to keep it very simple once the approach is started because your total
> focus must be on flying the approach once you start it.
>
> Trying to determine an artificial missed approach point other than the
> published one you are flying will get you killed.......
>
> grumpy
>
> do not archive
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:59 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
>> There are fights worth fighting, but I wouldn't consider ANY war a
>> "good war" won or lost.
>>
>> Please explain how 500/1 "give you some margin of error" when you are
>> in the clouds? Going missed at some arbitrary minimum requires more
>> maneuvering (and thus more risk) than just aligning the needles and
>> continuing to PUBLISHED minimums.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM, lbgjb10 <lbgjb@gnt.net
>> <mailto:lbgjb@gnt.net>> wrote:
>>
>> <mailto:lbgjb@gnt.net>>
>>
>> Jesse--I remember when I got my rating in the early 60's--my dad,
>> old WWII (the last good, winning one, unless you count Granada)
>> pilot, said, put the ticket on the glare shield and hope God see's
>> it, as I was boarding my Tripacer with a whistle stop tuning
>> radio!!!! Try an approach to mins. (VFR with instructor) and have
>> him fail your instruments except your basic backup, add a little
>> turbulence and it can really change your minimums. 500/1 mile
>> gives you some margin of error. Your problem will be staying
>> really current with winter and icing, and with summer boomers in
>> FL not very conducive to 'fun' IFR. Best and most fun IFR I had
>> was living on the west coast with marine layer, smooth clouds with
>> decent ceilings--made you feel like a real hot shot. Just be
>> careful our there. Larry
>>
>> --------
>> Larry and Gayle N104LG
>>
>>
>> --
>> William
>> N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>>
>> *
>>
>> ===================================
>> lectric.com
>> m">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ebuilthelp.com
>> w.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>> tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ===================================
>> nics.com
>> ===================================
>>
>> *
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Balloons for you....potato chip bags for me....been there, done
that. Man, that can give you a fast heart rate while you
check the instruments and airframe over. :)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> In an e-mail that should be on the list by the time you read this, I
> said a short version of this very thing. I'm glad I'm not the only one
> that was meaning that.
>
> Overall, this has been a great discussion and very helpful to us (read
> me) newbies to IFR flight.
>
> My thoughts on the Autopilot issue is what has been mentioned here
> before, as well as many other places. An Autopilot makes single pilot
> IFR safe. With 2-pilot IFR, while it is important to clearly understand
> who has control and what the copilot's responsibilities are, the nice
> thing about a copilot is that he doesn't have to spend his time
> controlling the airplane and can do things like look for the runway,
> watch and call out altitudes, remind pilot of the needles (you're a
> little low, come to the left a little) and verify frequencies and remind
> the pilot of missed approach procedures, etc. When the autopilot is
> handling the controls, then the single pilot can be watching the
> needles, making sure they are telling the correct information (right
> frequencies), keep up on missed approach procedures, watch the "magenta
> line", look for runway lights, etc. It is very important to be on your
> game as far as hand-flying, but that should either be practiced in VMC
> or with another "safety" pilot, IMHO. When you're single pilot in IMC
> on an approach and have an autopilot, I think it's a mistake not to use
> it. I know most autopilots I have flown can micro-control a lot better
> than I can and definitely keep the needles closer to the center. Also,
> as long as they are working correctly, they don't have an inner ear to
> mess them up.
>
> I had a couple of incidental/accidental IFR experiences before I got my
> ticket and they showed me how I would react if something unexpected
> happened. The most obvious one was going from VMC to 0/0 in a very
> short time (with pounding rain). I learned a lot from that, but mainly
> learned that, while my heart did start beating a little faster, I just
> calmly went to my instruments and gently put the number that had been on
> the bottom to the top and came out of it. I was with ATC and when they
> asked me if everything was OK, I just asked them if they had a window
> through the weather that was actually as big as I had thought the one I
> was going through was.
>
> On my return from the solo IFR flight the other day, I had a CFII friend
> with me and my son in the back seat. We had just finished a great meal
> at Lambert's in Foley, AL. We were leveling off at 11,000 in IMC. It
> was about 38 degrees, and we had clear air about 1,000 feet below me,
> but I wanted to experience a little bit of true IMC enroute. As we
> leveled off I heard a loud POP. After asking my son to look for a
> quart-worth of oil splattered all over the baggage compartment he said,
> "My balloon!!!" My friend said that when he first heard the POP he
> looked right at me. He said I didn't react at all, but started looking
> at engine gauges and checking to make sure everything was alright. If
> the gauges tell me things are fine, and especially if they agree with
> eachother, then it must be something else. The balloon realization put
> my mind at ease, of course. All of this just taught me that in a
> situation like that, I would do the right thing.
>
> Sorry for being so long-winded. I'll shut up for another month or so
> now...maybe.
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Miller John wrote:
>
>> At the risk of increasing the firestorm here......
>>
>> Personal minimums are what I require forecast (or actual) BEFORE I
>> will commit to plan a flight or start an approach.
>>
>> These personal minimums will vary depending on lots of things guys
>> have mentioned in previous emails.
>>
>> However, once I begin the approach, I fly it to the published minimums
>> and either land or go missed.
>>
>> Loads of past experience in very fast, single seat airplanes taught us
>> to keep it very simple once the approach is started because your total
>> focus must be on flying the approach once you start it.
>>
>> Trying to determine an artificial missed approach point other than the
>> published one you are flying will get you killed.......
>>
>> grumpy
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:59 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>>
>>> There are fights worth fighting, but I wouldn't consider ANY war a
>>> "good war" won or lost.
>>>
>>> Please explain how 500/1 "give you some margin of error" when you are
>>> in the clouds? Going missed at some arbitrary minimum requires more
>>> maneuvering (and thus more risk) than just aligning the needles and
>>> continuing to PUBLISHED minimums.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM, lbgjb10 <lbgjb@gnt.net
>>> <mailto:lbgjb@gnt.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <mailto:lbgjb@gnt.net>>
>>>
>>> Jesse--I remember when I got my rating in the early 60's--my dad,
>>> old WWII (the last good, winning one, unless you count Granada)
>>> pilot, said, put the ticket on the glare shield and hope God
>>> see's it, as I was boarding my Tripacer with a whistle stop
>>> tuning radio!!!! Try an approach to mins. (VFR with instructor)
>>> and have him fail your instruments except your basic backup, add
>>> a little turbulence and it can really change your minimums.
>>> 500/1 mile gives you some margin of error. Your problem will be
>>> staying really current with winter and icing, and with summer
>>> boomers in FL not very conducive to 'fun' IFR. Best and most fun
>>> IFR I had was living on the west coast with marine layer, smooth
>>> clouds with decent ceilings--made you feel like a real hot shot.
>>> Just be careful our there. Larry
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Larry and Gayle N104LG
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William
>>> N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> lectric.com <http://lectric.com>
>>> m">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> ebuilthelp.com <http://ebuilthelp.com>
>>> w.matronics.com/contribution <http://w.matronics.com/contribution>
>>> tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> nics.com <http://nics.com>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I use 1000' agl for my personal minimum with VCR at alternate. I have
your avionics.
Sent from my iPhone
Robert E. Brunkenhoefer
Brunkenhoefer Law Firm, P.C.
520 Lawrence St.
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Phone: 361-888-8808
Facsimile: 361-888-6753
robert@brunklaw.com
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:00 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
>
> This brings up another question. What are people using for
> "personal minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they
> have circling minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with
> family they will only go if their destination is VFR. I felt
> comfortable shooting the approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would
> certainly feel comfortable lower with another pilot than I would
> solo. This pole, at least for my info, would be single pilot IFR
> with an autopilot (just for conversation, say it's an autopilot with
> GPS Nav or Steering and Altitude Hold, but no coupling, so the
> equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> Big congrats to you...that's a huge accomplishment and now you've
>> earned the lower insurance besides. :) You're right, it's a
>> plane that is just perfect for IFR X/C flights. Glad
>> you're having a good time!
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> Well, I flew my first official IFR solo flight today in the RV-10
>>> (after passing my IFR checkride a couple of weeks ago). For those
>>> who need the extra encouragement in building, this is an
>>> incredibly stable platform for IFR flight, especially with a good
>>> autopilot driven by a good IFR GPS.
>>> do not archive
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jesse
I had always viewed single engine IFR as a rather crazy affair (crazy as in
"I'm crazy to be doing this"). Having said that I have had a rating for
over 30 years, flown some multi engine, but just don't have a lot of
experience. About 12 years ago I bought my first aircraft (Cessna
Cardinal ) and started flying single engine, no auto pilot IFR. I decided
on a personal minimun of 700 and 1 so as to give me a chance to pick out a
spot to go should my engine hic cup.
I'm sure you will get a thousand different opinions on this subject. With
your well equipped -10 I would pick set a personal minimum and then slowly
work lower to a point you are comfortable with.
Congrats and good luck. Please be cautious.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@saintaviation.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>
> This brings up another question. What are people using for "personal
> minimums"? Some I've talked to say they'll go if they have circling
> minimums. Others say 1,000 feet. Some say that with family they will
> only go if their destination is VFR. I felt comfortable shooting the
> approach when the METAR was MVFR. I would certainly feel comfortable
> lower with another pilot than I would solo. This pole, at least for my
> info, would be single pilot IFR with an autopilot (just for conversation,
> say it's an autopilot with GPS Nav or Steering and Altitude Hold, but no
> coupling, so the equivalent of the Digiflight II non-V).
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
As I embark on the IFR ticket this post is worth a bunch to me. Since my -10 is
well equipped for IFR flight, testing all those functions have been part if
wringing out the airplane, I appreciate the technology of my avionics and having
shot some ILS approaches two weeks ago I can say this aircraft "hand flies"
really nice. I like "flying" the airplane and I like the fact that if needed
there is a backup to "me" My humble thought regarding IFR flight personal minimums
are not so much terminating the approach but understanding your own skills..I
had 130 hours of 172 time prior to flying my RV...I had to graduate to a
high performance pilot and I recall my first take off as holy crap I'm about to
blow through pattern altitude and my head is still a 1/2 mile behind me!! With
that said and a good 30 hours of instruction from three good friends/CFI's
who loved to jump in and fly with me on my much appreciated fuel bill, I feel
very proficient in the RV now...Where am I going with this is that the AP was
only used to make sure it worked properly during systems checks..I was informed
that the F-100 AP stunk but the F-16 was good enough for formation work...but
C.T., my friend/ retired USAF fighter jock Colonel/ CFI and in good enough
shape to kick my butt in his 70's told me you'll never get good if you don't
fly the airplane..and you wont stay good at it if you let those avionics fly it
for you...I feel good point to point and running down the LOC/GS.....but I agree
the IFR ticket is the Masters Degree to the PPL..looking forward to the challenge!!
Gotta say since I finished building it's nice to see a flying post!!!
The vertical stab build seems so far in the past now...and I love seeing the
new builders fielding the same questions Tim, Scott, Deems, John Cox before
he took that vocabulary class that turned him into what he is now, myself and
others from the defunct Yahoo days were bouncing off each other have not changed..the
only thing missing is the long lost James McClow..I .never liked clowns
till I !
met Jimm
y
Mac!! He was the reason spell check was invented...(Deems too! Sorry buddy)
Rick S.
40185.....N246RS
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'll add my 2 cents to the game. I've flown a lot of IFR in single seat
fighters that couldn't use an autopilot on the approaches (or didn't have
one at all) so I'm not 100% sold on the necessity of an AP, but a big fan of
proficiency. Having said that, the RV-10 on autopilot certainly is a dream
and personal minimums should be fluid based on currency and familiarity with
the departure and destination.
I have the TruTrak with all the bells and whistles, and while it's a great
system I have noticed it gets overwhelmed while slowing and configuring on
the approach unless I feed in trim periodically. The danger is there is no
indication of needing to add up trim and it will get off glidepath
significantly and could be insidiously dangerous. Just something to be
aware of.
By the way, if it turns out I'm the only one with this issue and it's
because I probably wired something wrong, please let me know.
Marcus
40286
-----Original Message-----
do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver
Watson
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
<MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
I did 100% of my IMC flying without an AP but I probably won't do
anymore intentionally.
I agree it should be considered required for us non-pros. Not because
we are amateurs
but because most of us don't fly enough to stay truly proficient with
those kinds of operations.
I know I can hand fly a simple, slow, draggy Maule in 'hard' turbulent
IMC at a time when
I flew and filed practically EVERY week. It's nice to know I can do it,
but I'm probably done with it.
I'm sure those freight dog types could do it safely all day long. It's
called work.
I'd give a lot for a mission and the $$ to fly every week again!
Bill "never learned to fly to ATP standards on purpose" Watson
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> The Autopilot is essential. Ya ya ya, you should be able
> to hand fly. Fine, we all know that. But, when you
> get task loaded, nothing helps more than hitting a couple
> buttons until you can get your head together. You can't
> blindly trust the autopilot, either, but it really should
> be a requirement IMHO for single-pilot ops, to have one
> on board that works. At least when ceilings are lower
> than VFR. When I got my IFR ticket I don't think I had
> an AP in the plane, but it was my first purchase before
> I'd take the family in IMC. At the time, I spent $5-7000
> for an S-Tec and it was money well spent. The TruTrak
> is far nicer.
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I too am in the last stages of earning my IFR ticket. It is one of the most
challenging things I have ever done. I am doing it in a 172 with no GPS or
AP. It has an ADF :-( I appreciate all the posts on the subject. But I
have a building question.
Stein is building me a fine G900 panel. However, the panel does not have
the small flanges on the lower sides to rivet onto the side skins. Have
others with this panel made brackets or not connected it at all? Christer
at Steinair said he has not heard how or if anyone is accomplishing this.
Dave Leikam
RV-10 #40496
N89DA
Muskego, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
>
> As I embark on the IFR ticket this post is worth a bunch to me. Since
> my -10 is well equipped for IFR flight, testing all those functions have
> been part if wringing out the airplane, I appreciate the technology of my
> avionics and having shot some ILS approaches two weeks ago I can say this
> aircraft "hand flies" really nice. I like "flying" the airplane and I like
> the fact that if needed there is a backup to "me" My humble thought
> regarding IFR flight personal minimums are not so much terminating the
> approach but understanding your own skills..I had 130 hours of 172 time
> prior to flying my RV...I had to graduate to a high performance pilot and
> I recall my first take off as holy crap I'm about to blow through pattern
> altitude and my head is still a 1/2 mile behind me!! With that said and a
> good 30 hours of instruction from three good friends/CFI's who loved to
> jump in and fly with me on my much appreciated fuel bill, I feel very
> proficient in the RV now...Where am I going w!
> ith this is that the AP was only used to make sure it worked properly
> during systems checks..I was informed that the F-100 AP stunk but the F-16
> was good enough for formation work...but C.T., my friend/ retired USAF
> fighter jock Colonel/ CFI and in good enough shape to kick my butt in his
> 70's told me you'll never get good if you don't fly the airplane..and you
> wont stay good at it if you let those avionics fly it for you...I feel
> good point to point and running down the LOC/GS.....but I agree the IFR
> ticket is the Masters Degree to the PPL..looking forward to the
> challenge!! Gotta say since I finished building it's nice to see a flying
> post!!! The vertical stab build seems so far in the past now...and I love
> seeing the new builders fielding the same questions Tim, Scott, Deems,
> John Cox before he took that vocabulary class that turned him into what he
> is now, myself and others from the defunct Yahoo days were bouncing off
> each other have not changed..the only thing missin!
> g is the long lost James McClow..I .never liked clowns till I !
> met Jimm
> y
> Mac!! He was the reason spell check was invented...(Deems too! Sorry
> buddy)
>
> Rick S.
> 40185.....N246RS
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Marcus,
You probably have one of the earlier models of the TruTrak servos without the trim
sensor. All RV-10 pitch servos now should have the trim sensor which will
tell you to trim up or down as needed so the servo doesn't have to hold trim.
You might want to check. You also likely may not have the torque-enhanced servo.
The torque-enhancer has a "wooden" wheel with a cable that runs a metal
"arm" forward and aft. The non-torque-enhanced servo just has a rotary arm that
connects to the bell crank with a little pushrod, just like the roll servo.
The torque-enhanced/trim-sensing servo is a little more expensive, but it does
take care of the trimming issue you mention. The way to tell if your servo
is trim-sensing is if the motor portion is hard-attached to the base or if there
is a little bit of flexibility in the connection. If flexibility, it is
trim-sensing. If hard-attached, it is not.
By this description, you probably know which one you have. If you have the trim-sensing
servo, then you are missing the trim-sensing wire. If I remember correctly,
the roll servo has 7 wires, so that would mean that the pitch servo should
have 8 (or is it 6 and 7?). If you look in your installation manual it
should tell you.
TruTrak is very good about upgrading things like that, possibly for just the difference
in cost.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:45 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote:
>
> I'll add my 2 cents to the game. I've flown a lot of IFR in single seat
> fighters that couldn't use an autopilot on the approaches (or didn't have
> one at all) so I'm not 100% sold on the necessity of an AP, but a big fan of
> proficiency. Having said that, the RV-10 on autopilot certainly is a dream
> and personal minimums should be fluid based on currency and familiarity with
> the departure and destination.
>
> I have the TruTrak with all the bells and whistles, and while it's a great
> system I have noticed it gets overwhelmed while slowing and configuring on
> the approach unless I feed in trim periodically. The danger is there is no
> indication of needing to add up trim and it will get off glidepath
> significantly and could be insidiously dangerous. Just something to be
> aware of.
>
> By the way, if it turns out I'm the only one with this issue and it's
> because I probably wired something wrong, please let me know.
>
> Marcus
> 40286
>
> -----Original Message-----
> do not archive
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver
> Watson
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:26 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> I did 100% of my IMC flying without an AP but I probably won't do
> anymore intentionally.
> I agree it should be considered required for us non-pros. Not because
> we are amateurs
> but because most of us don't fly enough to stay truly proficient with
> those kinds of operations.
>
> I know I can hand fly a simple, slow, draggy Maule in 'hard' turbulent
> IMC at a time when
> I flew and filed practically EVERY week. It's nice to know I can do it,
> but I'm probably done with it.
> I'm sure those freight dog types could do it safely all day long. It's
> called work.
>
> I'd give a lot for a mission and the $$ to fly every week again!
>
> Bill "never learned to fly to ATP standards on purpose" Watson
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> The Autopilot is essential. Ya ya ya, you should be able
>> to hand fly. Fine, we all know that. But, when you
>> get task loaded, nothing helps more than hitting a couple
>> buttons until you can get your head together. You can't
>> blindly trust the autopilot, either, but it really should
>> be a requirement IMHO for single-pilot ops, to have one
>> on board that works. At least when ceilings are lower
>> than VFR. When I got my IFR ticket I don't think I had
>> an AP in the plane, but it was my first purchase before
>> I'd take the family in IMC. At the time, I spent $5-7000
>> for an S-Tec and it was money well spent. The TruTrak
>> is far nicer.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Can't you just rivet in a small piece of angle? I cut my tabs
off and did that anyway because the tabs were a pain to deal with
during some of the panel face trim addition I did for the lower
switch panel.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Dave Leikam wrote:
>
> I too am in the last stages of earning my IFR ticket. It is one of the
> most challenging things I have ever done. I am doing it in a 172 with
> no GPS or AP. It has an ADF :-( I appreciate all the posts on the
> subject. But I have a building question.
>
> Stein is building me a fine G900 panel. However, the panel does not
> have the small flanges on the lower sides to rivet onto the side skins.
> Have others with this panel made brackets or not connected it at all?
> Christer at Steinair said he has not heard how or if anyone is
> accomplishing this.
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10 #40496
> N89DA
> Muskego, WI
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
>
>
>>
>> As I embark on the IFR ticket this post is worth a bunch to me. Since
>> my -10 is well equipped for IFR flight, testing all those functions
>> have been part if wringing out the airplane, I appreciate the
>> technology of my avionics and having shot some ILS approaches two
>> weeks ago I can say this aircraft "hand flies" really nice. I like
>> "flying" the airplane and I like the fact that if needed there is a
>> backup to "me" My humble thought regarding IFR flight personal
>> minimums are not so much terminating the approach but understanding
>> your own skills..I had 130 hours of 172 time prior to flying my RV...I
>> had to graduate to a high performance pilot and I recall my first take
>> off as holy crap I'm about to blow through pattern altitude and my
>> head is still a 1/2 mile behind me!! With that said and a good 30
>> hours of instruction from three good friends/CFI's who loved to jump
>> in and fly with me on my much appreciated fuel bill, I feel very
>> proficient in the RV now...Where am I going w!
>> ith this is that the AP was only used to make sure it worked properly
>> during systems checks..I was informed that the F-100 AP stunk but the
>> F-16 was good enough for formation work...but C.T., my friend/ retired
>> USAF fighter jock Colonel/ CFI and in good enough shape to kick my
>> butt in his 70's told me you'll never get good if you don't fly the
>> airplane..and you wont stay good at it if you let those avionics fly
>> it for you...I feel good point to point and running down the
>> LOC/GS.....but I agree the IFR ticket is the Masters Degree to the
>> PPL..looking forward to the challenge!! Gotta say since I finished
>> building it's nice to see a flying post!!! The vertical stab build
>> seems so far in the past now...and I love seeing the new builders
>> fielding the same questions Tim, Scott, Deems, John Cox before he took
>> that vocabulary class that turned him into what he is now, myself and
>> others from the defunct Yahoo days were bouncing off each other have
>> not changed..the only thing missin!
>> g is the long lost James McClow..I .never liked clowns till I !
>> met Jimm
>> y
>> Mac!! He was the reason spell check was invented...(Deems too! Sorry
>> buddy)
>>
>> Rick S.
>> 40185.....N246RS
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Since we're on the subject of checkrides, I took mine in an Archer with an autopilot.
The examiner expected me to fly one approach with the autopilot (and not
the partial panel one) and even recommended that I use the autopilot to recover
from unusual attitudes at least once, which I declined. The most common
wisdom around here (take that for what it's worth) is to mark the ADF "INOP" for
the checkride and thereafter.
Those rivets on the outboard ends of the lower bracket are just for a little stability
of the bottom of the panel. There can't be a whole lot of structural
integrity from two 3/32 rivets. You can make a bracket that attaches to the c-channels
there or can brace the bottom of the panel to the subpanel somehow.
If you have the throttle quadrant that adds a fair bit of stability to the lower
end of the panel in itself by the way it attaches to the subpanel. You could
make a couple of braces out of aluminum angle.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Dave Leikam wrote:
>
> I too am in the last stages of earning my IFR ticket. It is one of the most
challenging things I have ever done. I am doing it in a 172 with no GPS or AP.
It has an ADF :-( I appreciate all the posts on the subject. But I have
a building question.
>
> Stein is building me a fine G900 panel. However, the panel does not have the
small flanges on the lower sides to rivet onto the side skins. Have others with
this panel made brackets or not connected it at all? Christer at Steinair
said he has not heard how or if anyone is accomplishing this.
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10 #40496
> N89DA
> Muskego, WI
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
>
>
>>
>> As I embark on the IFR ticket this post is worth a bunch to me. Since my -10
is well equipped for IFR flight, testing all those functions have been part
if wringing out the airplane, I appreciate the technology of my avionics and having
shot some ILS approaches two weeks ago I can say this aircraft "hand flies"
really nice. I like "flying" the airplane and I like the fact that if needed
there is a backup to "me" My humble thought regarding IFR flight personal minimums
are not so much terminating the approach but understanding your own skills..I
had 130 hours of 172 time prior to flying my RV...I had to graduate to
a high performance pilot and I recall my first take off as holy crap I'm about
to blow through pattern altitude and my head is still a 1/2 mile behind me!!
With that said and a good 30 hours of instruction from three good friends/CFI's
who loved to jump in and fly with me on my much appreciated fuel bill, I
feel very proficient in the RV now...Where am I going w!
>> ith this is that the AP was only used to make sure it worked properly during
systems checks..I was informed that the F-100 AP stunk but the F-16 was good
enough for formation work...but C.T., my friend/ retired USAF fighter jock Colonel/
CFI and in good enough shape to kick my butt in his 70's told me you'll
never get good if you don't fly the airplane..and you wont stay good at it if
you let those avionics fly it for you...I feel good point to point and running
down the LOC/GS.....but I agree the IFR ticket is the Masters Degree to the PPL..looking
forward to the challenge!! Gotta say since I finished building it's
nice to see a flying post!!! The vertical stab build seems so far in the past
now...and I love seeing the new builders fielding the same questions Tim, Scott,
Deems, John Cox before he took that vocabulary class that turned him into
what he is now, myself and others from the defunct Yahoo days were bouncing
off each other have not changed..the only thing missin!
>> g is the long lost James McClow..I .never liked clowns till I !
>> met Jimm
>> y
>> Mac!! He was the reason spell check was invented...(Deems too! Sorry buddy)
>>
>> Rick S.
>> 40185.....N246RS
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yeah I can make a fix for it. When I asked Christer about it he commented
that he thought some may have just left them off. I didn't think that
sounded plausible so I just wanted to hear what others have done.
Dave Leikam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
>
> Can't you just rivet in a small piece of angle? I cut my tabs
> off and did that anyway because the tabs were a pain to deal with
> during some of the panel face trim addition I did for the lower
> switch panel.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Dave Leikam wrote:
>>
>> I too am in the last stages of earning my IFR ticket. It is one of the
>> most challenging things I have ever done. I am doing it in a 172 with no
>> GPS or AP. It has an ADF :-( I appreciate all the posts on the
>> subject. But I have a building question.
>>
>> Stein is building me a fine G900 panel. However, the panel does not have
>> the small flanges on the lower sides to rivet onto the side skins. Have
>> others with this panel made brackets or not connected it at all?
>> Christer at Steinair said he has not heard how or if anyone is
>> accomplishing this.
>>
>> Dave Leikam
>> RV-10 #40496
>> N89DA
>> Muskego, WI
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As I embark on the IFR ticket this post is worth a bunch to me. Since
>>> my -10 is well equipped for IFR flight, testing all those functions
>>> have been part if wringing out the airplane, I appreciate the technology
>>> of my avionics and having shot some ILS approaches two weeks ago I can
>>> say this aircraft "hand flies" really nice. I like "flying" the airplane
>>> and I like the fact that if needed there is a backup to "me" My humble
>>> thought regarding IFR flight personal minimums are not so much
>>> terminating the approach but understanding your own skills..I had 130
>>> hours of 172 time prior to flying my RV...I had to graduate to a high
>>> performance pilot and I recall my first take off as holy crap I'm about
>>> to blow through pattern altitude and my head is still a 1/2 mile behind
>>> me!! With that said and a good 30 hours of instruction from three good
>>> friends/CFI's who loved to jump in and fly with me on my much
>>> appreciated fuel bill, I feel very proficient in the RV now...Where am I
>>> going w!
>>> ith this is that the AP was only used to make sure it worked properly
>>> during systems checks..I was informed that the F-100 AP stunk but the
>>> F-16 was good enough for formation work...but C.T., my friend/ retired
>>> USAF fighter jock Colonel/ CFI and in good enough shape to kick my butt
>>> in his 70's told me you'll never get good if you don't fly the
>>> airplane..and you wont stay good at it if you let those avionics fly it
>>> for you...I feel good point to point and running down the LOC/GS.....but
>>> I agree the IFR ticket is the Masters Degree to the PPL..looking forward
>>> to the challenge!! Gotta say since I finished building it's nice to see
>>> a flying post!!! The vertical stab build seems so far in the past
>>> now...and I love seeing the new builders fielding the same questions
>>> Tim, Scott, Deems, John Cox before he took that vocabulary class that
>>> turned him into what he is now, myself and others from the defunct Yahoo
>>> days were bouncing off each other have not changed..the only thing
>>> missin!
>>> g is the long lost James McClow..I .never liked clowns till I !
>>> met Jimm
>>> y
>>> Mac!! He was the reason spell check was invented...(Deems too! Sorry
>>> buddy)
>>>
>>> Rick S.
>>> 40185.....N246RS
>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jesse, thanks! This has been a great thread with lots of things I can
relate to. I thought I'd toss in my two cents.
I got my IFR rating just before I started building my 10. Like a lot of
people I didn't fly much while I was building, and certainly no IFR. I
always figured the panel I was building would make IFR a breeze compared to
the steam gauge 172 single axis AP I learned in. I was wrong about that, at
least initially.
Tim pointed out that figuring out all the button pushing is a job in itself
and I couldn't agree more. My panel is pretty typical if even on the light
side these days: Single AFS EFIS, 530, VSGV (recently became an AFS AP),
D10A and mechanical AS for backups. We recently went from a 496 to a 696.
One of the most important mods we made was to install autotrim. I'd say
that cut the workload on approach by at least 30%. Totally worth the
effort.
I wasn't at all prepared for how much learning the equipment required. I
tried to get IFR current as soon as phase I was finished but soon realized
that between sorting out bugs and configuring things like I wanted it, the
plane was changing too fast for me to keep up. The changes were mostly in
how the EFIS interacted with the autopilot. My CFI made me do a lot of hand
flying, which was very valuable, but I scared myself once attempting an
approach and decided I wouldn't go IFR without knowing exactly how the
autopilot worked and how to tell if it was lying to me. I was so far in the
dark that a lot of times I couldn't tell the difference.
I can't say enough about how AFS has supported their products. They've been
responsive to problems, sometimes providing new software the same day, and
now with their AP working well, it's everything (and more) that was
promised.
Six months ago I got serious about an IPC. I just recently finished that,
and I feel good about flying IFR, although I have to admit that all the
actual since then has been with other current IFR pilots on board. I'm
based in perfect IFR training country. We have a nice, gentle, predictable
marine layer 3-5 days a week, and 6 approaches to three different airports
within 20 miles. And we can talk to Approach from the runup area. Plug
Warning!! Instrument Flight Solutions is where I train (next door).
They're Experimental-friendly and up to speed on several different EFIS and
TruTrak products. Give them a call if you need a good CFII.
Last weekend we returned from Yuma, AZ, knowing there was weather in Central
CA. We (my wife and I--she's a B767 capt) filed in flight 20 miles from the
IMC. We could see a lot of the route, but we going in and out of the tops
at 12000. I had my first encounter with rime ice, which would attach as we
passed through the tops and then sublimate after we were in the clear. That
was a little hairy but it didn't seem to affect performance. Our home base
was VFR so we didn't need to do an approach.
It took me a solid six months of frequent training to get comfortable with
my glass panel. I can tell now when something's not set up right, or when
the hardware is misbehaving. That was not the case at first. As the
builder and designer of the panel, it's very tempting to try to troubleshoot
as soon as something seems wrong. I'm trying to break that habit and just
fly the airplane.
Everybody, take your time, fly safe, and don't expect all those gizmos to
feel natural right out of the box. They take some getting used to, but once
you put in the effort it does finally start to feel right.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
N921AC 540 hours, down this week for the 500 hour mag inspection, wow,
already??
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|