Yes,definitely this flight is a lot more effort VFR vs IFR
The engine failure scenario is a valid one, but if you have basic instrument capabilities, it does not change much to fly on top VFR or IFR with regards to such scenario. However, in my opinion, engine failures are overplayed in safety case analysis. In this particular case there were factors (mostly wx and flight management) with one or more orders of magnitude higher statistical safety relevance to worry about than engine failure. Well done @UdoR, but I am glad you’ll get your IR soon!
Thanks for the writeup!
UdoR wrote:
I decided to go at about 150 KTAS LOP burning around 9 Gal/h.
Nice! With our C182RG we get 150KTAS with11.5Gal/h
On these longer trips an A/P will reduce the workload quite a bit. Ever since I use it, I’m amazed how well it keeps the altitude, proved by the logs in SD:
Antonio wrote:
but I am glad you’ll get your IR soon!
However, on the way back I am not sure if I would have flown any different if filed Z. With the whole ice forecast chart painted in yellow I would have to have flown in around FL60, which would have been 4 hours in clouds. No thanks.
By the way, of course we did a short flight to Oviedo, the capital of Asturias, and made two more interesting fotos.
This landscape is a real beauty…but not so very easy for VFR flights. Best thing is to have the IR and use LEAS
UdoR wrote:
not so very easy for VFR flights
Yup, the second, very beautiful, picture illustrates it. The best is to have both options: VFR+IFR!
