boscomantico wrote:
What about diverting then? Does that ring a bell?
Obviously it does 
Still the question how far is too far is interesting. And it does change over time due to new tools that become available. The laws of physics and nature do not change. What changes is how good you can deal with them.
I see this as exploring the boundaries of a system. It is imperative to experiment safely, to have an out, and some things are probably better kept as pure thought experiments.
However, as I was talking about earlier, without a point of reference it is quite difficult to understand what “too far” actually is.
For example, one of my IFR instructors who flies a Citation jet for a well-known charter airline, explained that as an IFR pilot one is expected to accept turbulence inside clouds and ATC does expect one to perform within the limits of the IFR system. The way his words came over indicated that flying through cumulus clouds were normal. No, he was definitely not talking about CB or TCU. But then it never became clear what he thinks acceptable turbulence is. That would have required a practical demonstration.
In that sense pictures of clouds and an experience report about how it was on the inside are quite helpful to build up one’s own reference system.
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
Still the question how far is too far is interesting. And it does change over time due to new tools that become available. The laws of physics and nature do not change. What changes is how good you can deal with them.
However, as I was talking about earlier, without a point of reference it is quite difficult to understand what “too far” actually is.
I completely agree with the assessment. How far is too far depends on the platform flown and the pilot (experience, state of the day) in a given set of circumstances. I consider myself an IFR greenhorn with only about 90 hours IFR, only ~2% of which in IMC. The aircraft available to me is analogue and has no redundancy for attitude (2nd AI, electric), only a one-axis autopilot with an erratic history. To be honest, this renders it psychologically difficult to fly in IMC, especially with turbulence. It is in those situations where the will to live makes itself apparent :) Therefore my conception of what is too far is likely to be quite different compared to someone with your platform. And everyone needs to find out for him/herself where that comfort zone ends. Stretching the bounds of the comfort zone is vital to gain new experience. But within clear self-imposed limits.
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
For example, one of my IFR instructors who flies a Citation jet for a well-known charter airline, explained that as an IFR pilot one is expected to accept turbulence inside clouds and ATC does expect one to perform within the limits of the IFR system. The way his words came over indicated that flying through cumulus clouds were normal.
Yes, i think your instructor has a point. At the same time i will have no qualms about “stretching” the limits of the IFR system if required. There’s no use to the other participants of the IFR system for a troubled pilot with a racing heart who tries to accommodate the system while manoeuvring into something he and the aircraft is may not be cut out for. To remain safe for yourself and others, decisions for such stretching (e.g. cancel IFR at FL170 with circular descent), ideally occur well before being in the situation the stretching was devised to avoid, giving ample time for communication and potentially escaping. The stretching shouldn’t be the last resort. That implies that one must be able to “see where one goes” and what comes after, be it visually (the only means on my platform), by means of devices (radar) or dissemination of wx info (e.g. METARs).
I will not go where i cannot see :) sounds strange and counterintuitive to the term IFR, doesn’t it?
Not so much. I sometimes say that
Novice IFR pilots (or VFR pilots) often wrongly think that IFR is a “fly inside cloud”-rating. And while it obviously is in a certain way, the goal is usually to stay out if them as much as possible.
I don’t really agree with that instructor. While there are obviously moments when following IFR procedures is strictly necessary (for example on the SID out if Innsbruck), in the flatlands, ATC is there to acomodate your needs. That doesn’t mean one should bother them with a change of heading or altitude with any kind of cloud, but certainly one is right in doing it in every case where the flight condition gets uncomfortable.
The IFR system is just not as “rigid” as some FTOs want to make their students believe.
boscomantico wrote:
The IFR system is just not as “rigid” as some FTOs want to make their students believe.
Certainly right. Another instructor with totally different background – Africa bush flying and ferry flights – did talk about and showed icing and also explained how one can cheat a bit with the heading bug when navigating to a distant waypoint. That did show different flying attitudes depending on their respective environments.
I also encountered German ATC saying “find your own way to XYZ”. Now I’m thinking that it may actually mean “if you have to avoid something, just do it. No need to call me”. Might that be the right interpretation?
Spanish ATC seems to be very on the we don’t care side for the flight path or altitude. As long you don’t get into the path of the airliners flying in an out of the El Prat airport in Barcelona they seem not to care much what you do within their class A TMA.
As I mentioned before, I will certainly become more and more assertive and tell ATC what I want to do or am doing in order to keep the decision making in the cockpit. At the very end it is me up there within the elements and they in a chair on the ground with air conditioning and coffee. Still we are supposed to be a team!
On board radar is good, obviously, but it’s not easy to use; in the terminal area especially given you’re descending it’s tricky to get a good picture. On top of that given you’re supposed to follow the approach path it’s quite binary. Finally, it increases the workload a lot; for me as a single pilot, beyond what I can handle (in the terminal environment) if things are on the busy side (which they would be).
I think there’s a lot to be said for an early diversion if the approach area is imc and convective.
Lots of really good points made…
One thing I would say, and this comes as a surprise to people who fly with me, is that you (the pilot) sometimes have to get very assertive with ATC.
They usually don’t have weather radar, and if they have (which may be a laptop running meteox.com, which is what I would have if I was an ATCO because it will obviously help me do the job – you just have to hide the laptop when you get a CAA check) they are not allowed to pass you the information (except in an all-out emergency e.g. freezing rain and you have to descend fast, with terrain being the only consideration) so you have to assume they have no idea where the weather is.
Also, there is almost zero IFR GA around in the Eurocontrol system, so it is fair to assume the “opposition” is turboprops and (mostly) jets. These are all very high perf aircraft, +2000 to +5000fpm climb rates, FL300+ ceilings, radar, etc and they are equipped to look after themselves pretty well. And they are usually very current.
So, say I am departing and there is a solid convective mass on the runway heading, but there is a patch of blue sky 30 deg left, I will say to ATC “due weather, request 30 degrees left after departure, and a climb FL150”. This has never been refused. And anyway all the commercials will be doing the same.
When arriving, it’s OK to just ask “request XX degrees left to avoid” even when coming up to the ILS. Subject to terrain obviously, you don’t have to fly the procedure. And the commercials will be doing the same… just watch them on FR24 or whatever when there is bix wx around. In this situation it is best to remain high, VMC on top, till the last moment.
We pilots are trained to be very compliant with ATC and that is how normal flight is done, but convective wx is where the line is drawn, and “to avoid” is the magic phrase.
And if you don’t get a reply just do it anyway.
Stick to standard phrases ALWAYS. There are cases of ATC which really cannot understand English beyond the few phrases and their procedure can be to ignore the call because it leaves no evidence on the tape. I know people don’t like me saying this but this happens a fair bit in Spain.
Anywhere, in any situation, avoid using nonstandard phrases like “I would like 20 degrees left because of a big cloud” because out of those 11 words only 3 (20 degrees left) are standard phraseology, and IMHO about 75% of ATCOs, especially in s. Europe, will not know the other 8 at all. They are likely to ignore such a call. This can happen in France too, which UK pilots often regard as their doorstep, but where you can get this problem too, and I hear it (conversational English, meeting with no response, or multiple requests from ATC for a repeat) on the radio all the time. So “we would like to QSY to Le Touquet” contains just 2 words which ATC should understand
also explained how one can cheat a bit with the heading bug when navigating to a distant waypoint.
I think that happens quite a lot 
Also “to avoid” can be similarly useful
Flying out of Denver last month we had to depart towards and cross a big front with CBs up to FL350 or so. The pilot I was with is a very experienced jet instructor and ferry pilot and I was very tactical during the climb with heading requests to avoid big clouds that I couldn’t see behind.He told me that he was impressed and is constantly astonished that experienced pilots sometimes just blindly fly into a big cumulus (or even CB) clouds which have a good chance of being pretty uncomfortable at best and at worst having something bigger right behind. And this is when there are clear ways around with left/right deviations and they just fixate on what they were told to do.
In radar airspace I always try to ask first, not doing so is a sign of poor planning.
When it comes to weather in Europe, you are not a team with ATC, they are providing a service and you need to tell them what you want. In the US interestingly they are far more proactive with weather and try to help you based on what they can see.
I also encountered German ATC saying “find your own way to XYZ”. Now I’m thinking that it may actually mean “if you have to avoid something, just do it. No need to call me”. Might that be the right interpretation?
I never heard that phrase. I often get ‘resume your own navigation to XYZ’ after some vectoring, but this means fly direct to XYZ.
JasonC wrote:
When it comes to weather in Europe, you are not a team with ATC, they are providing a service and you need to tell them what you want. In the US interestingly they are far more proactive with weather and try to help you based on what they can see.
I believe that to be an important point. My understanding of the team comes from the US. On the other hand on a recent flight German ATC was talking about the new weather radar system they have available.
I would also add that controllers in the terminal area are very grateful if you tell them where the weather is so reference to a VOR or waypoint.
I have been to TC Ops at Swanwick (London TMA) and they do not have any weather indications on their vectoring screens – the supervisors do, but they don’t/can’t overlay it. They trust flight crew to ask for what they want, and do their best to give it to them. They will also use flow control to significantly slow down the number of aircraft coming in (a major cause of summer slots.)
