Flying VFR

[Lord Ratner]

One of my biggest gripes with UPT is that I have only two rides [EDIT:] in Phase Two [/EDIT] to teach the student "everything he/she needs to know" about flying VFR.

We military pilots love to brag about how much better we are than most of the civilian flying world, but god help me when I tell another pilot that I didn't "back-up" the VFR flight plan on the GPS.

I've always preferred VFR flying. Even earned a downgrade in UPT on a checkride for cancelling too early. Still proud of that.

If you made it back without incident, your check pilot should have gotten a swift kick in the jimmy.

[Muscle2002]

Bullshit. Way too many variables.

Course Training Standards.

Disagree...unless the CTS defines when you should cancel IFR and he did it before then. Having such a restriction almost seems to contradict the whole point of pilot training in that you want to build airmanship, decision making along with operating an airplane.

[Lord Ratner]

Bullshit. Way too many variables.

Course Training Standards.

Disagree...unless the CTS defines when you should cancel IFR and he did it before then. Having such a restriction almost seems to contradict the whole point of pilot training in that you want to build airmanship, decision making along with operating an airplane.

I've had this argument with many other instructors.

"Don't cancel until you have radar termination is sight"

"Don't cancel until you are cleared direct"

"Don't cancel until you are well clear of GTR (insert other airspace here)"

"Don't cancel until you are at least 3 miles to radar termination"

"Don't cancel until you are number one for radar termination"

I hear these taught to students on a regular basis, and they all make me cringe. First, they are techniques, not procedure, and if someone is downgraded for canceling early (yes, I've seen it more than once), that's a foul on the IP.

But more importantly, these are techniques whose purpose is to avoid, rather than promote airmanship. In every case they are meant to mitigate the possibility of making common VFR errors (getting lost, violating airspace, interfering with other traffic) by avoiding VFR flight all together. Not exactly building a strong skill set. And the result is a student (and one day a pilot) who only knows how to find a point by being vectored within 3 miles and then cancelling. Which, in my limited experience, often leads to misidentifying the point, due to only looking for a specific point (building, dam, tower, runway) instead of looking for the whole location (building between two freeways, dam on the north side of a oval lake, tower surrounded by chicken coops along side a river, runway with 12,000 feet of concrete and a military base attached to it).

Anyone with any exposure to UPT can see the AF aversion to VFR flight. I saw the same thing in the MC-12.

</FAIP soapbox>

Edited August 1, 2012 by Lord Ratner

[NKAWTG]

The only time I've ever dinged someone for canceling IFR to early was when he tried to do so above FL180 while on an IP training sortie. I was fairly sure it was the first time he had uttered those words since pilot training.

[HercDude]

I hear these taught to students on a regular basis, and they all make me cringe. First, they are techniques, not procedure, and if someone is downgraded for canceling early (yes, I've seen it more than once), that's a foul on the IP.

My point was to refute this statement:

"If you made it back without incident, your check pilot should have gotten a swift kick in the jimmy."

If the IP is backed up by CTS, there is no jimmy kicking required.

I have long forgotten the CTS for VFR Traffic Entry, but I saw guys screw all kinds of things up by cancelling when they shouldn't have. Like when guys would cancel above an overcast layer. Or when they have a wingman on his fourth form ride in fingertip and decide that they can bank it up and pull into a 69'x69' hole in the clouds. Or when they canceled without really knowing where they were in relation to the airfield, civillian airspace, and tower's airspace. Or when they are being vectored for a descent because they are 5 miles from radar termination at 17,000'.

Most guys would get this idea from flying with guys who said "cancel as soon as you can" which I always though was better stated "cancel when it no longer makes sense to be IFR." Sometimes that was a few miles from radar termination, sometimes that was as soon as they cleared the MOA.

It depends and teaching them the difference does more to build and enhance SA than calling a guy a pussy for being IFR. If a guy cancels 20 miles out and only makes it to radar termination because he is staring at the KLN-900, he's not learning anything usefull about flying and therefore I would have downgraded him, regardless of whether he made it back without incident or not. And of course as long as the CTS backs it up.

EDIT: I think we're about done with this thread.

Edited August 2, 2012 by HercDude

[Danger41]

I think the CTS is the biggest joke I've ever heard. If you guys really followed the CTS to the letter, how does a guy get every single thing "U" on his first ride in a block when he was able to do most of the stuff decently well?

I don't care at all about getting a downgrade back in UPT. I just always found it funny that everything is graded to the almighty "course training standards" and it's a straight line of U's that progressively moves to F's then G's then E's.

Sanity check: I understand you don't want to take the time to zig zag up and down everyone's grade sheet after another basic contact sortie and I wouldn't either. Not attacking you or anyone really, just find it funny.

But back to the thread! C-17 performance is pretty damn impressive and land at the big runway instead of the little one.

[Buddy Spike]

My point was to refute this statement:

"If you made it back without incident, your check pilot should have gotten a swift kick in the jimmy."

If the IP is backed up by CTS, there is no jimmy kicking required.

I have long forgotten the CTS for VFR Traffic Entry, but I saw guys screw all kinds of things up by cancelling when they shouldn't have. Like when guys would cancel above an overcast layer. Or when they have a wingman on his fourth form ride in fingertip and decide that they can bank it up and pull into a 69'x69' hole in the clouds. Or when they canceled without really knowing where they were in relation to the airfield, civillian airspace, and tower's airspace. Or when they are being vectored for a descent because they are 5 miles from radar termination at 17,000'.

Most guys would get this idea from flying with guys who said "cancel as soon as you can" which I always though was better stated "cancel when it no longer makes sense to be IFR." Sometimes that was a few miles from radar termination, sometimes that was as soon as they cleared the MOA.

It depends and teaching them the difference does more to build and enhance SA than calling a guy a pussy for being IFR. If a guy cancels 20 miles out and only makes it to radar termination because he is staring at the KLN-900, he's not learning anything usefull about flying and therefore I would have downgraded him, regardless of whether he made it back without incident or not. And of course as long as the CTS backs it up.

EDIT: I think we're about done with this thread.

What is this "radar termination point" of which you speak? How do you know how far away it is?

[Learjetter]

... but I saw guys screw all kinds of things up by cancelling when they shouldn't have. Like when guys would cancel above an overcast layer...

Mostly agree...except for this: There's no reason one cannot fly VFR above an overcast layer.

[Guest]

This entire discussion about VFR makes me sick.

The stereo flt plans for 99.69% of the sorties I flew we're VFR.

I never flew a combat sortie on an IFR flt plan or following IFR.

IFR is for weaklings, fuel/PCA or weather.

Everything else should be VFR or you are hurting the team.

[Breckey]

Mostly agree...except for this: There's no reason one cannot fly VFR above an overcast layer.

Doubt AETC will say the same thing

[HercDude]

Mostly agree...except for this: There's no reason one cannot fly VFR above an overcast layer.

Huh? We're talking about T-6s cancelling IFR to enter the RSU (read VFR only) controlled pattern. If there is an overcast layer below me, and below that is a VFR pattern, I can't legally enter it w/o an IFR clearence to get below the wx and then cnx.

[Chida]

Find a hole!! (sts)

[Guest]

Huh?

Ugh.

If there is an overcast layer below me...I can't legally enter it w/o an IFR clearence to get below the wx and then cnx.

He's not talking about that.

You're an IP, right? Get a bigger picture.

[theat6bisasham]

I think 'VFR on-top operations' are restricted in AETC..or at least I remember that being the case...

[sky_king]

11-202v3 AETC Sup:

8.18. IFR "VFR-on-Top. " Unless otherwise restricted by the MAJCOM, PICs may request

and fly IFR "VFR on Top" operations (IAW AFMAN 11-217V2 guidance) when the mission

requires such clearances. If the PIC cancels the IFR clearance, comply with Chapter 7.

8.18. (AETC) IFR ―VFR on Top. ― VFR on top operations are prohibited unless prescribed

in AFI 11-2MDS-specific or syllabus guidance.

Also:

7.3. Flight Operations under VFR. <snip> PICs of VFR aircraft must at all

times be able to control the aircraft by visual reference to a discernible horizon, regardless of

cloud clearance requirements.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is specifically prohibited by AETC. Other MAJCOMs can make their own rules. Personally, I'm not a fan of the VFR on top plan of action because of 7.3. Sloping cloud decks often give a false horizon and if you've every flown while looking at one, it's very disorienting. Also, the plane I fly hardly ever is below FL180 anyway so it's a not really an option anyway.

[HU&W]

I think 'VFR on-top operations' are restricted in AETC..or at least I remember that being the case...

"VFR on top" or "VFR over the top"?

[stract]

"VFR On Top" is for aircraft on an IFR flight plan

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0703.html

"VFR Over The Top" is for aircraft who are NOT on an IFR flight plan

https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part1-1-FAR.shtml (scroll down to the definition of VFR Over the Top; the definition for VFR on Top can be found by scrolling up to "IFR Over The Top")

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-rac-2-0-2599.htm#2-7-4

[sky_king]

Now that the subject of this thread has completely changed from its origin... True. There is a difference between VFR over and on top. Let me ask you this. What advantage does operating "on top" give you besides flying 500' higher or lower than everyone else? You must still comply with all IFR rules in addition to VFR cloud clearances. Plus, ATC is no longer responsible for separation of aircraft. Basically, you add more to your workload without much benefit.

VFR over the top at least adds the ability to fly where ever, when ever you want. Assuming you meet cloud clearances, altitude restrictions, etc. Still not a great plan in my opinion. If you are flying via IFR techniques, you should probably be on an IFR flight plan. This being said by the guy who would rather fly VFR everywhere he goes.

[Guest]

The ability to operate without any assistance for safe separation from clouds, the surface and other aircraft depends on who you are and what your mission is. That's a blank check bulletproof fully valid reason to be VFR during a training mission except when to do so is in violation of peacetime airspace or regulations.

My expectation was always that guys had a technique to get themselves and their flight below the weather in a tactical manner wherever they were in the world day or night without the assistance of a controlling agency. That included landing on a blacked out surface down to 100/1. There are some extremely simple and effective ways to do that. Some, but no where near all, circumstances require some simple magic that is available in every aircraft in the USAF inventory. I expected them to train to that. Failure to have a technique/contract to do so was a failure as an ATTACK pilot. The first time I read My Secret War I realized I needed to have this skill nailed down if I wanted to call myself an ATTACK pilot. My first day as a weapons officer I realized I needed to make it part of the squdron contracts.

I cannot imagine anyone in any aircraft with a tactical mission would disagree. If they do, they are wrong. And many are wrong. I have heard people say they were unable to accept tasking because of wx followed by a dozen properly trained guys working the same target area before and after them. That is a foul. Always has been and always will be. Especially with all the magic available to a pilot today.

Air Et cetera Command can treat the students like pussies and the IPs can hold up the course training standards shield and I am fine with that. I am thankful that was not what I experienced at Rucker or Vance. The jets are white and the IPs are not responsible for creating tactical pilots.

However, Air etc. Command should not be teaching students to be afraid of someday becoming a tactical pilot and they can leave that training to the RTU and the squadron. There is absolutely no excuse for a line IP in a unit with a tactical mission to have anything except the highest expectations that their pilots will be able to make things happen regardless of weather. A patchwearer in a tactical unit should lose his or her wings if he or she cannot provide a tactical solution executable by any pilot for almost any weather scenario a pilot will face in combat.

Technique only...but people on the ground downrange and sleeping contently in their beds back in the US are counting on you to have a technique other than Surrender to Mother Nature.

[tac airlifter]

The ability to operate without any assistance for safe separation from clouds, the surface...... That's a blank check bulletproof fully valid reason to be VFR during a training mission except when to do so is in violation of peacetime airspace or regulations.

I have heard people say they were unable to accept tasking because of wx followed by a dozen properly trained guys working the same target area before and after them. That is a foul. Always has been and always will be. Especially with all the magic available to a pilot today.

Quoted for truth. If anyone on the ground is willing to go, I'm willing to go & support.

[FallingOsh]

I've been gone for a bit and unable to respond, but I think it's hilarious how we have this whole conversation about how VFR is manly and what real pilots do. Aside from staying in the terminal area for pattern work, I haven't flown a flight plan below FL230 since UPT, so apparently that makes me a terrible pilot, because I don't go out of my way to practice something I never, ever use. Welp, guess I better go hand in these wings to the boss and tell him I'm just an imposter.

Dropping bombs, AR, FARP... those are things you shouldn't practice because you'll never use. If you don't know how to fly VFR, then yes, you should turn in your wings. That's day 1, basic PPL shit. You're not a pussy if you can't fly VFR. You're an idiot.

[LockheedFix]

I've been gone for a bit and unable to respond, but I think it's hilarious how we have this whole conversation about how VFR is manly and what real pilots do. Aside from staying in the terminal area for pattern work, I haven't flown a flight plan below FL230 since UPT, so apparently that makes me a terrible pilot, because I don't go out of my way to practice something I never, ever use. Welp, guess I better go hand in these wings to the boss and tell him I'm just an imposter.

This VFR discussion pertains mainly to tactical aircraft, and there you have a valid point. If you fly a strat aircraft and will never land somewhere that doesn't have an instrument approach, you have no reason to fly an instrument approach.

Therein lies the problem with the C-17. They fly mainly strat but have the capability to do tactical operations. But on the ride alongs I have done with C-17 crews, I have been shocked at their laissez-faire approach to tactical flying. I have literally been scared for my life more times on C-17s (probably less than a dozen flights) than I have in over 2,000 hours in the Herk, primarily because the C-17 crews were so non-chalant about shit they should have been taking more seriously. That's why I'm never surprised to hear about a C-17 crew taxiing into a light pole, flying through a massive thunderstorm, or getting violated crossing the Atlantic.

[GoAround]

This VFR discussion pertains mainly to tactical aircraft, and there you have a valid point. If you fly a strat aircraft and will never land somewhere that doesn't have an instrument approach, you have no reason to fly an instrument approach.

But on the ride alongs I have done with C-17 crews, I have been shocked at their laissez-faire approach to tactical flying. I have literally been scared for my life more times on C-17s (probably less than a dozen flights) than I have in over 2,000 hours in the Herk, primarily because the C-17 crews were so non-chalant about shit they should have been taking more seriously. That's why I'm never surprised to hear about a C-17 crew taxiing into a light pole, flying through a massive thunderstorm, or getting violated crossing the Atlantic.

Whatev. If you were so "scared for your life", then why did you continue to go on ride alongs?

[moosepileit]

what is a ridealong? LOSA? Just getting to/from a deployment? Just curious as it sounds valid as an outside MWS observation. What concerns an outsider may not apply, or could help the other culture.

[LockheedFix]

what is a ridealong? LOSA? Just getting to/from a deployment? Just curious as it sounds valid as an outside MWS observation. What concerns an outsider may not apply, or could help the other culture.

Trainer/mentor at JRTC for the most part, but also bummed my way up front into and out of the AOR a couple times.