Flying VFR

[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.

[Prozac]

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.

Ever been to OIF/OEF? Hope you can pick the correct hemispheric.

(Edit: format)

Edited August 5, 2012 by Prozac

[Hueypilot]

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.

You seriously haven't flown anything under FL230? It's not that VFR flying is "manly", it just requires a different skill set of airmanship and judgement calls. There's more room to hang yourself while VFR WRT airspace and traffic separation. The hard part isn't making traffic calls on UNICOM, but having enough ability to work your high performance airplane into a traffic pattern with a bunch of bug smashers that don't think like you and definitely don't fly like your airframe does.

Someone else (Toro?) asked who in the USAF ever flies VFR aside from helos...when I flew C-21s about 10 years ago, we did a lot of VFR stuff. It was common to get some BFE uncontrolled airfield as one of your destinations. One of the trends that got C-21 pilots in trouble was VFR flying, mostly resulting in getting violated (sts) flying into the wrong airspace. The basic rules are taught at UPT, but that's about it and for most of the USAF, they never see VFR flight again for a long time. Problem is, if you keep flying for a career, you're gonna see it again and I've seen plenty of USAF pilots that are pretty good at what they do IFR or flying canned VFR routes to/in SUA, but flail a little when they have to no kidding fly somewhere VFR, or depart VFR out of a mountainous airfield to pick up an IFR route, etc.

[Guest]

What is hard about VFR flight? Seriously? What is all this talk about people getting themselves into trouble? Trouble? C'mon.

Airplanes, all of them, are meant to be flown VFR. They do not require an air traffic controller. They do require a pilot.

I think the biggest issue is guys being scared of ATC. ATC is not a threat, even though they like to act like it. They will try to tell you what to do but only under the most unusual circumstances can they make you do something when you are VFR, especially if you are proactive and tell them what you intend to do before they get a chance to boss you around. If they tell you to do something you don't want to do you can simply say "unable" or throw a "say reason?" back at them followed by an "unable" when they give you some bullshit reason that is really nothing more than they don't want to put down their cup of coffee.

[Guest]

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.

Wrong. The discussion is that pilots need to be able to fly without being told what to 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.

I don't know what you fly but it sounds like you have it backwards if what you are say saying is true. Maybe the fact that you are a terrible pilot IS THE REASON you are doing something that doesn't require you to fly below FL230. Ever.

I'm not saying you suck, just contemplating your own words.

Good attitude though.

Welp, guess I better go hand in these wings to the boss and tell him I'm just an imposter.

He probably already knows.

I like your attitude though.

[sky_king]

All of this VFR discussion and we don't even carry sectionals in our airplane. Of course, we have every approach built in the contiguous United States. 69% of which we won't even be within 500 miles of in a given FLIP cycle.

[USAF Pilot]

You seriously haven't flown anything under FL230? It's not that VFR flying is "manly", it just requires a different skill set of airmanship and judgement calls. There's more room to hang yourself while VFR WRT airspace and traffic separation. The hard part isn't making traffic calls on UNICOM, but having enough ability to work your high performance airplane into a traffic pattern with a bunch of bug smashers that don't think like you and definitely don't fly like your airframe does.

Someone else (Toro?) asked who in the USAF ever flies VFR aside from helos...when I flew C-21s about 10 years ago, we did a lot of VFR stuff. It was common to get some BFE uncontrolled airfield as one of your destinations. One of the trends that got C-21 pilots in trouble was VFR flying, mostly resulting in getting violated (sts) flying into the wrong airspace. The basic rules are taught at UPT, but that's about it and for most of the USAF, they never see VFR flight again for a long time. Problem is, if you keep flying for a career, you're gonna see it again and I've seen plenty of USAF pilots that are pretty good at what they do IFR or flying canned VFR routes to/in SUA, but flail a little when they have to no kidding fly somewhere VFR, or depart VFR out of a mountainous airfield to pick up an IFR route, etc.

Flew the mighty C-17 VFR many times in Alaska. Didn't seem like a big deal then...just gotta keep an eye out for those bug smashers everywhere cause they aren't talk'n or squawk'n...

Edited August 6, 2012 by USAF Pilot

[matmacwc]

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.

Clearance, I'd like IFR direct to Tehran. Non standard 6-9 miles wide, block 25-29 with deviations approved for 10-35 for threat reactions. Sure I'll squak that mode 3 and C and can I get flight following while in Iran airspace? My gross weight might change dramatically during flight, as well as my true airspeed.

[busdriver]

we don't even carry sectionals in our airplane.

Rainman, this is where the fear of VFR comes from. Outside of Hogs and Helos, how many pilots navigate by looking at the ground as a matter of routine? If they don't carry sectionals they sure as shit don't use 1:250/1:100/1:50.

[Fast_N_Low135]

Rainman, this is where the fear of VFR comes from. Outside of Hogs and Helos, how many pilots navigate by looking at the ground as a matter of routine? If they don't carry sectionals they sure as shit don't use 1:250/1:100/1:50.

Shack

[Day Man]

Rainman, this is where the fear of VFR comes from. Outside of Hogs and Helos, how many pilots navigate by looking at the ground as a matter of routine? If they don't carry sectionals they sure as shit don't use 1:250/1:100/1:50.

autobahn arrival into ETAR...

[Swizzle]

autobahn arrival into ETAR...

Really, based upon a visual arrival which sometimes cars are moving faster than C-5's?

That approach isn't but 5 minutes...perhaps busdriver is speaking of longer time VFR, like not during a visual approach.

[tac airlifter]

Outside of Hogs and Helos, how many pilots navigate by looking at the ground as a matter of routine?

There might be a few other aircraft out there....

[joe1234]

I don't know what you fly but it sounds like you have it backwards if what you are say saying is true. Maybe the fact that you are a terrible pilot IS THE REASON you are doing something that doesn't require you to fly below FL230. Ever.

Well, you contemplated those words incorrectly. The implication was that outside of your limited experiences in aviation, there exists the small chance that you might not know what the hell you're talking about. It's definitely starting to show -- perhaps making sweeping assertions about "all aircraft" is unwise.

[Guest]

Well, you contemplated those words incorrectly. The implication was that outside of your limited experiences in aviation, there exists the small chance that you might not know what the hell you're talking about.

Ah, I see.

Maybe you would like to help out an old man?

You said you have never flown below FL230. I believe you.

You said you must be a terrible pilot because you have never flown below FL230.

I said maybe it is not because you don't fly below FL230 that makes you terrible but instead you have been given a mission that doesn't require flight below FL230 because that was what the USAF decided would be best for you. You are telling me I'm wrong? Maybe you're a victim? Maybe you fly the Dragon Lady?

I am just contemplating your words. Yours. Not mine.

So you want to enlighten me? In the absence of evidence I can only infer and you say I did it wrong. I like your argument that becuase I am too far removed that I have lost the ability to think. However, that only works as a joke. It fails as basis for your argument.

It's definitely starting to show -- perhaps making sweeping assertions about "all aircraft" is unwise.

You did the cannon ball into the pool on this one. You want to wave away any pushback.

You are now even saying some airplanes are not meant to be flown by a pilot looking outside. I wasn't talking about RPAs. I said airplanes, not missions. Military airplanes. With pilots inside them. I've been gone for a couple years but I think you guys still have some of those. You know what I'm talking about, right?

[joe1234]

I said maybe it is not because you don't fly below FL230 that makes you terrible but instead you have been given a mission that doesn't require flight below FL230 because that was what the USAF decided would be best for you. You are telling me I'm wrong? Maybe you're a victim? Maybe you fly the Dragon Lady?

I am just contemplating your words. Yours. Not mine.

If I recall correctly, the USAF certainly made no attempt to reserve the lower altitude missions for anyone possessing exceptional skill. Quite the opposite, in fact, as I'm sure you're familiar.

You are now even saying some airplanes are not meant to be flown by a pilot looking outside. I wasn't talking about RPAs. I said airplanes, not missions. Military airplanes. With pilots inside them. I've been gone for a couple years but I think you guys still have some of those. You know what I'm talking about, right?

Last I checked, you still had to look outside when flying a mission on an IFR flight plan. How in the world did you even extrapolate that from what I was saying?

Is there anyone here who actually flies airplanes that wants to discuss this? I'm getting tired of debating with historians.

[Guest]

If I recall correctly, the USAF certainly made no attempt to reserve the lower altitude missions for anyone possessing exceptional skill. Quite the opposite, in fact, as I'm sure you're familiar.

You do not recall correctly. Maybe it would help if you thought of it in terms of missions requiring the use of all altitudes. Certainly there are exceptions. You have offered no evidence that you do anything that would make you one of those exceptions.

And yes, the USAF has, in fact, reserved lower altitude missions to those possessing the proper skills. It is documented and formalized. The fact that you are unfamiliar proves to me that you are exactly where you belong. Nothing wrong with that.

You are not a bad person, it is simply a fact that what you do in the airplane is probably pretty easy...relatively speaking. Remember, no one is saying whatever you do is unimportant. Just easy.

Last I checked, you still had to look outside when flying a mission on an IFR flight plan. How in the world did you even extrapolate that from what I was saying?

C'mon, you aren't really going to try to stretch that far are you?

Can you really not comprehend the context of what is being discussed? I think you are better off acting like you have a little SA than trying to defend against the obvious implication of your original statement.

Your call.

Is there anyone here who actually flies airplanes that wants to discuss this? I'm getting tired of debating with historians.

LOL

You do realize you are victimizing and fatiguing yourself by responding, right?

You know you are free to leave, right? The door to the rest of the Internet is unlocked.

Have a good one. Good luck to you.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Rainman A-10

[sowchinook]

Lets just keep splitting this thread...

Poll: "what is the highest you have ever been?". Even if it wasn't legal. To include civilian time.

Choice wording free of charge.

[HeloDude]

Lets just keep splitting this thread...

Poll: "what is the highest you have ever been?". Even if it wasn't legal. To include civilian time.

Choice wording free of charge.

How about: What is the lowest you have flown (outside of the terminal area)?

[busdriver]

There might be a few other aircraft out there....

You're right, I over generalized and left out AFSOC and the smaller niche aircraft. However, there is a stark difference between not carrying sectionals and expecting a co-pilot to successfully navigate to a set of coordinates with no nav system, TOT +- 30 seconds. It's not that hard but you do need to practice.

[ThreeHoler]

FL420 and 3,000 AGL in this jet. Howmydicktaste?

[stract]

Lets just keep splitting this thread...

Poll: "what is the highest you have ever been?". Even if it wasn't legal. To include civilian time.

Choice wording free of charge.

13,500. I don't think I went this high in the T-34...it was for some PJ HALO jump currencies.

How about: What is the lowest you have flown (outside of the terminal area)?

ha.

[joe1234]

Okay, time to end this.

You do not recall correctly. Maybe it would help if you thought of it in terms of missions requiring the use of all altitudes. Certainly there are exceptions. You have offered no evidence that you do anything that would make you one of those exceptions.

Of course I haven't, because I'm not an exception. I chose that path and I'd choose it again. But, this has nothing to do with whether I'm an exception or not. It's about you making ignorant assertions about Air Force aviation. Flying is flying, whether you're VFR at 500' AGL or IFR at FL430, whether you're doing a low altitude strafing run, or a high altitude intercontinental bombing mission.

Your blanket statements about how/why we should perform VFR flight was out of bias towards your specific Air Force experience, but also ignorance for the numerous other missions that exist where VFR flight simply is not stressed or even used. That's why I called you out. You can't defend your statements, and seem to be focusing on this stupid derail by taking my sarcasm literally. All you had to post was "oh yeah, I forgot about that...well what I said applies mostly to tactical aircraft". Or you can literally just keep arguing something everyone here knows is incorrect. My advice: let it go. It's okay to admit you're not omniscient about all things military aviation.

[busdriver]

Okay, time to end this.

Nope, I take away your GPS and require you to execute over 400nm. Your INS has inherent errors, can you meet your TOT? It's as simple as that.

[addict]

Nope, I take away your GPS and require you to execute over 400nm. Your INS has inherent errors, can you meet your TOT? It's as simple as that.

Not a problem at all. I'm already there