Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

CB-IR / CB IR / CBIR (merged)

“Single Pilot IFR is one of the most dangerous types of flying in general aviation”
Really?, IMHO flying vfr into Imc and often failing to bite the bullet and climb to msa seems to figure in a lot of accident reports. Interested to hear your justification for this claim……most of my flying is single pilot IFR nowadays!

Last Edited by PeteD at 19 May 21:41
EGNS, Other

PeteD wrote:

“Single Pilot IFR is one of the most dangerous types of flying in general aviation”
Really?, IMHO flying vfr into Imc and often failing to bite the bullet and climb to msa seems to figure in a lot of accident reports. Interested to hear your justification for this claim……most of my flying is single pilot IFR nowadays!

Obviously that’s dangerous. Luckily I’ve never done it as a Vanilla PPL. Obviously SPIFR can be and should be a very safe operation, if not safer than VFR. But with understanding the risks, the aircraft equipment, personal limitations, and with good prior planning all risks can be mitigated. Obviously flying is safer than getting to the airport by road so there’s that.

Most of my flying in the future will be SP IFR, and I very much looking forward to it.

Thanks for watching!

Qualified PPL with IR SP/SE PBN
EGSG, United Kingdom

pilotrobbie wrote:

I presume even with ADF equipped, most examiners (although don’t quote me on that) are looking at GPS based approaches as the secondary approach on an IRT?

I’d presume that’s likely especially if you want a PBN endorsement. Your excerpt from the standards document is slightly at odds with what @bookworm was mentioning regarding the 3D / 2D approach requirement for tests. It does say “at the time of publishing” so that may explain it. The simple truth is; be proficient in all procedures for the test and you won’t have an issue.

There is definitely a bit of over dramatising in your videos… “thats definitely IFR innit” (22:40) whilst on the approach…hmmmmm

Regarding your approach; you questioned what to do after CAM. When I was taught that specific approach it was; CAM DCT BEPOX (procedure turn due to angle) and the remainder of approach.

EGSX

TimR wrote:

I’d presume that’s likely especially if you want a PBN endorsement. Your excerpt from the standards document is slightly at odds with what @bookworm was mentioning regarding the 3D / 2D approach requirement for tests. It does say “at the time of publishing” so that may explain it. The simple truth is; be proficient in all procedures for the test and you won’t have an issue.

The document hasn’t been updated since 2014. Good point though, there’s still the VOR/DME at BIGGIN till it’s replaced along with an NDB at Oxford. I see the NDB hold at Southend gets used a lot. But I am bit fed up of the same places hah, but it’s worth practicing.

TimR wrote:

There is definitely a bit of over dramatising in your videos… “thats definitely IFR innit” (22:40) whilst on the approach…hmmmmm

Back when we both did our PPLs, we flew in mostly CAVOK conditions; so it really was tongue in cheek. I am enjoying the flights, but I still feel even 2-3 weeks away from the saddle takes me along time to get back into the hack of things. But I’ve come a long way in my hand flying skills since I went to renew my IMCR.

TimR wrote:

Regarding your approach; you questioned what to do after CAM. When I was taught that specific approach it was; CAM DCT BEPOX (procedure turn due to angle) and the remainder of approach.

Ah brilliant! So 45 degree turn away from BEPOX, followed by a 180 degree reversal? You learn something new everyday. Like this plot below?

Last Edited by pilotrobbie at 20 May 00:26
Qualified PPL with IR SP/SE PBN
EGSG, United Kingdom

PeteD wrote:

“Single Pilot IFR is one of the most dangerous types of flying in general aviation”
Really?, IMHO flying vfr into Imc and often failing to bite the bullet and climb to msa seems to figure in a lot of accident reports.

VFR into IMC is not a “type of flying in general aviation”. It is an emergency.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

pilotrobbie wrote:

So 45 degree turn away from BEPOX, followed by a 180 degree reversal?

The approach chart doesn’t have any restriction on the track inbound BEPOX so the procedure should work no matter from what direction you’re approaching. When you activated the approach, the navigator should have given you a fly-by turn at BEPOX inbound SC05I. You should make that turn and not make a procedure turn on the outside of BEPOX – at least not without ATC approval. The distance between the BEPOX (the IAF) and SC05I (IF) should be enough for you to have a sufficiently long straight track before SC05I.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

VFR into IMC is not a “type of flying in general aviation”. It is an emergency.

It is an SOP in the UK Everything in Class G is practically speaking “VFR” and ATC services are provided (or not) accordingly.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

It is an SOP in the UK Everything in Class G is practically speaking “VFR” and ATC services are provided (or not) accordingly.

I’m sure that PeteD was not referring to planned uncontrolled IFR by a suitably rated pilot, but rather to accidentally entering IMC on a VFR flight. (He did write “…failing to bite the bullet and climb to msa…”)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

The approach chart doesn’t have any restriction on the track inbound BEPOX so the procedure should work no matter from what direction you’re approaching.

If the airport is “non-radar” and the approach is procedural then you are often asked to fly via CAM when arriving E/SE. That puts you in a difficult position for a “report BEPOX” especially when flying along at 160kts as your GPS will make you turn significantly ahead of BEPOX.

A lot of my training was done flying EGSC approaches and both my FI and examiner wanted the procedure turn. Totally agree you need to coordinate that with ATC though. Apparently this is a known shortcoming of this specific approach and it’s more along the lines of “I will execute a procedure turn at BEPOX, will report turn complete” vs. “requesting a procedure turn at BEPOX”.

EGSX

Hi Robbie,

Having watched your last two videos (Southend and Cambridge) one thing that I think would make your life easier is to fly the approaches at a higher speed.

In the TB10 I fly an ILS with nil flap at 100-105 knots, and you could probably go a bit higher in the DA40 because you have a higher flap-limiting speed I believe. The thing that keeps me from flying it faster is that I need to get it below 95 knots after becoming visual to get some flap out.

The aeroplane is happier at a higher speed, it wallows less, responds better to your control inputs and is easier to keep on a constant trajectory. Not only that, you get down the approach more quickly so it is less time that you have to keep the needles centered. It also makes life easier for ATC if you are mixing it with faster traffic.

Whatever decision altitude you set for yourself, you will still have time after becoming visual to reduce power, let the speed bleed off into the white arc and deploy flap to slow you down to threshold speed. This is another reason to stay with the glideslope after becoming visual and not drop below it to aim at the numbers.

During my IMCr I was taught to fly the ILS with the first stage of flap at the same approach speed as used in the visual circuit. I cannot think of a single good reason to do that – it just makes your life much harder.

Last Edited by Graham at 20 May 16:14
EGLM & EGTN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top