Greetings

moffet · Post by **moffet** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 5:53 pm

Thought I was say hi. I just signed up for the Cessna 170 group, and will be looking for a 170 or 170A sometime in the near future. I'd like to do my instrument training in it.

I fly out of WVI in California, probably most of my flying will be west of the Sierra range (where my family is).

Any advice you can provide would be appreciated.

Brian

Mike Smith · Post by **Mike Smith** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:23 am

Brian,
I'm in Grass Valley, where about in the western Sierra's are you?

Mike Smith
1950 C-170A

BOBBY · Post by **BOBBY** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 7:34 am

Howdy Brian,

Welcome to the forum. You'll find alot of help with your Cessna 170 affliction here.

I got my instrument rating in a '48 ragwing somewhere near 30 years ago. How your training goes will depend on a few things including what your panel looks like. I had the original flight instruments with what were ok basics for radios. No fancy GPS to do the work. I found the old Artificial Horizon to be no hindrance. It is a big instrument (makes it easy to see small changes). The old Directional Gyro made me think (not having the open face picture of the compass rose presentation).

The 170 and 170A have little appreciable dihedral on the wings. They will not be quite as stable for your IFR training (although stable enough) as a 170B or newer Cessna.

You will have to consider what kind of vacuum source is installed. I had venturi tubes on the side. A vacuum pump is preferred, obviously and a good dual source/output one even better.

I'd be very cautious about hard IFR (areas with low ceilings within five hundred or so feet of minimums) without extensive upgrading of the original panel. Flight instruments, Nav and Comm radios, electrical system, etc. Reliability of the old 'stuff' will be suspect enough to give an IFR veteran the willies when pressed with decreasing inflight weather options.

Another obvious thing is to make sure your CFI is a current taildragger instructor. With the aerobatics you've been into, I'm sure there's one in your address book.

Above all, have fun

Bobby

Post by **GAHorn** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:03 pm

Brian, I'll (respectfully) disagree with Bobby on the necessity of a vacuum pump, although I agree with "hard" IFR with low ceilings and visibility.
Vacuum pumps (the dry type commonly available today) are mechanical devices with a miserable failure rate, and an expensive option to add to a 170 with the standard engine, which has no provision for them.
Venturi tubes, standard on the IFR 170, work just fine and very reliably if the correct size is installed and the vacuum system is in good shape. Their only drawback is that they only work in flight, but since you've already decided not to use a 170 in low ceilings and visibilities, that's no problem at all. My 170 has a dual venturi set-up that has the gyro's up and running before 300 feet of altitude on takeoff, and all the way to touchdown on approach. Common worries about venturi icing is non-existant. This airplane is not equipped, certified, nor should be flown in any icing whatsoever. A vacuum pump will not change that, neither will a heated pitot tube.
So ends the only difference of opinion I have with Bobby. (on this subject at least!)

(Hey, ...never underestimate the power of a Director!)

moffet · Post by **moffet** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:33 pm

The most IFR I want to do is occasionally punch through the stratus (ceilings around 1000 feet or so) that is almost always there during the summer months. I've done some IFR training many years ago, but due to family illness, job change, etc... I had to drop it.

During that training, I flew in a good IFR weather and got a healthy respect for the turbulence in clouds.

I live in Santa Cruz on the Monterey Bay, my little bit of daily paradise

Thanks for the continuing advice, when I get things like loans sorted out so that I'm actually on the hunt, you'll hear more.

Brian

BOBBY · Post by **BOBBY** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:28 pm

Hey George!

I really prefer laser ring gyros with triple redundancy along with dual RNP-5 GPS with two FMS's, a copilot, satcom, and a dispatcher

.

Didn't mean to cast 'spersions on the Venturi Loyalist Front. Natural is good. Venturis work well for the 170 classic single engine light IFR scenario. Dad was a Naturalist, too. He often wondered where I went wrong. I'm sure he made you holler at me.

Peace

,
Bobby

Post by **GAHorn** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:23 pm

Laser Ring Gyro's....just smoke and mirrors...

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:38 am

I agree with George on the venturi issue. I also have two venturis and fly "soft" IFR with them.

lowNslow · Post by **lowNslow** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 10:15 pm

Brian, I am just down the road from WVI - I keep my 170B at MRY. If you need any help with anything with (regard to airplanes that is), I'll be glad to do what I can.

Karl Kunz

David Laseter · Post by **David Laseter** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 10:21 am

Excellent response Bobby

I really like the vacuum pump on my 170, that has been in service about a million yrs with no problems, but I'd never say that here. It would get an ENORMOUS debate going again, like 170A vs 170B, Avgas vs Mogas, 180 gear vs 170 gear, etc..
Is there any way to LEGALLY punch through the clouds and fly over the top without being IFR certified? I know Canada sure didn't appreciate it!

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:51 am

"Is there any way to LEGALLY punch through the clouds and fly over the top without being IFR certified?"
Only if you thaw out your pitot tube, David.
Rudy

Post by **GAHorn** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:12 pm

You can fly IFR without a clearance in uncontrolled airspace, but the airplane and pilot have to be properly equipped, certified, and current.

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:34 pm

Say what George.

Oh you mean you can fly under IFR in VMC in uncontrolled airspace but you can't fly IFR under IMC in uncontrolled airspace at least that I can think of.

Up here in the North East where the most of the controlled airspace starts at 700 feet about the ground you wouldn't even think of it. Maybe in Texas where there is a lot of area that controlled airspace starts at 1200ft you may consider it but I still thought even then if you intentionally entered IMC you would have to be on a flight plane and cleared.

What FAR says you can be in IMC in uncontrolled airspace so that i can review it. I love to through this kind of trivia out around the office.

Post by **GAHorn** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:57 pm

By definition, uncontrolled airspace is uncontrolled. (See AIM, 4-4-1."An ATC clearance means authorization by ATC....for an aircraft to proceed under specified conditions within controlled airspace." ) There is no requirement, in fact there is no provision for ATC to issue a clearance, to an aircraft operating in uncontrolled airspace. An instrument rated pilot and equipped airplane may operate in IMC in uncontrolled airspace without a clearance. (In fact, just try to get one.)

There are widespread areas of the U.S. still with uncontrolled airspace. Most uncontrolled airports without an approach has it's controlled airspace floor above it start at 1200 AGL. If you depart such a field with the wx zero/zero, you'll be cleared "into controlled airspace, heading such and such, climb to such-an-altitude, squawk such and such, etc etc."...but your IFR climb in IMC conditions is without a clearance and the pilot is operating on his own quite legally. There are areas in the American west that uncontrolled airspace may not begin until 14,500 feet where the old continental airspace (now Class E) begins. Fly IFR in IMC all you want to without a clearance. Traffic and terrain seperation is the pilot's responsibility. (See AIM 3-3-1 "General, Class G airspace (uncontrolled)..." and 3-3-3, Class G Airspace "IFR Requirements, a. The CFR's specify the pilot and aircraft equipment requirements for IFR flights." Notice that no clearance is either req'd or offered. You simply have to provide your own terrain and aircraft seperation. Don't forget that for any enroute portion of such a flight (not for purposes of takeoff, landing, climbout/approach) you must maintain 1,000' above obstacles within 4nm, in accordance with 91.177.)
It's also a common technique when descending into an airport not equipped with an approach to use a "cruise" clearance. Example: Coming into my place out here west of Austin, I request and receive a "Cruise 4,000" clearance, descend to uncontrolled airspace, see the ground, and cancel IFR and proceed to my landing on my own. ATC makes no guarantees of traffic/terrain clearance below 4,000 feet out here, but I know where I am and provide my own terrain clearance.

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:52 pm

That's very interesting and I will review those references but here is a question for you.

How do you provide traffic seperation when you can't see anything?

As I said around the north east most controlled airspace starts at 700 ft. I've not departed from any airports with out an approach so I don't know if it's different and didn't think it was but we always got a clearance with a void time for departure before departing. (got it over the phone)

I'll ask those with more experiance but I don't think a "cruise" would work around here cause of all the traffic and the request would not be granted. It is not taught around here as a technic as far as I'm aware.

Most pilots I know that might do something your talking about would shoot an approach to a nearby airfield then scud run to their destination.

This stuff is always interesting to discuss cause I know for me if I don't talk about it I forget it.

More after I review the references.

(perhaps George this should be moved to its own topic)