spacemansteve: "Passed my Instrument Rating Test a couple of weeks ago"
Congratulations! The instrument rating opens up a whole new world to aviators, and by it's potentially unforgiving nature, it's an advancement we are compelled to really earn.
"nothing makes you feel more like a pilot than shooting through clouds."
That's so true- also learning the ATC system sufficiently to really put it to work for you. I often lament to non-instrument pilots that they are missing out on the best scenery by allowing a little visible moisture to block their path.
"Here in Australia we've only got CAT I ILS approaches across the country which proposes a dilemma for pilots in particular long haul pilots to the west coast who ultimately cannot plan an alternate aerodrome because of the lack of strips capable of supporting larger aircraft. (I remember a story about a QANTAS jet who couldn't land at Perth due to cloud (or was it fog?) below the DA and the couldn't divert due lack of fuel, so they ended up shooting the ILS again but using CAT III minima's). My question to you is
1. Have you shot an CAT III ILS approach?"
Only in a Level III simulator (CAT III B), during recurrent training for air charter- and that was "extra-curricular". I've never flown with the requisite equipment and crew to conduct them routinely.
"2. Do you think it stupid of CASA and Airservices Australia for not implementing CAT III's at some of our larger airfields?"
I doubt that the diversions that result from the policy significantly reduce the risk to the public. Large aircraft with the requisite equipment and crew training have long demonstrated the consistent safety of CAT III (a, b, & c) approaches.
With large aircraft landing with low minimums, the safety margins for touchdown and deceleration are much more critical than for small aircraft landing on huge runways. In non-precision approaches, landing minima acknowledge the very different physics of maneuvering and landing large and fast versus small and slow aircraft. But when it comes to precision approaches, there's no official recognition of the reality that a light airplane with precision guidance to a wide runway with a length of a mile or more has considerable room for touchdown and deceleration.
Since I don't teach in anything weighing hundreds of tons, I try and instill an appreciation for the distinction between jet culture and light airplane reality. On the occasions when I've been caught out in widespread clag, I've never found it scary to descend a light airplane even to a zero-zero landing, and I encourage the practice of the same for emergency use: This is the basic and consistently-executable combination of a well-flown ILS and the seaplane pilots' glassy-water landing. In light airplanes, I've been able to consistently teach my Instrument students to land safely and confidently without outside reference (on large runways) closely tracking the runway centerline to a stop. If you haven't done this, I encourage you to get with an Instrument Instructor who is so inclined to hone and maintain these skills for the day when you (both of you) will need them if you fly long enough.
The IFR culture often discourages realistic IFR emergency training, because that culture has become (by necessity) highly standardized and conservative. But by setting safe parameters with your instructor, there are important skills and experience to acquire that typical training neglects.
The majority of my IFR students fly single-engine airplanes, we practice engine failure scenarios in the airplane that include intercepting and flying partial-panel power-off approaches (also vectors/GPS/Ded Reckoning to flat terrain off airport). Most often, our safety margin is provided simply by elevating the altitudes of an approach procedure by several thousand feet (how high depends on performance, terrain, and traffic considerations). Critiquing the result begins with a look below at "touchdown" with the touchdown zone expected to be aligned and directly below the airplane by however many feet we have elevated the procedure. Where I've been conducting training (all around the USA) I've learned that in non-congested (non-terminal) environments, controllers can be very accommodating of approach procedures flown much higher than published- for them, it's like issuing a block altitude clearance with the added specificity of the an approach procedure's lateral navigation. Like any collaborations with ATC, if you can clearly explain to them what you want to do, they are most often eager to accommodate something so long as it does not present separation difficulties. By making special requests of ATC, there is the added benefit to both student and instructor of learning how to collaborate efficiently under more trying circumstances than training, such as unforeseen flight conditions and emergencies.
SpacemanSteve (answering Gustav, who cracks me up): "Its actually not that bad, you just have to trust your instruments no matter how you feel. I did a bit of night flying recently and started to get the leans during a departure. First thing i did was stare at the instruments in particular my artificial horizon so i could recage my brain. Then from there it was just a case of making sure that my brain doesn't get the better of me."
Absolutely right. With time, the leans do disappear with familiar instrument presentations. I find that I still experience it sometimes partial panel, or adapting to a new aircraft display- Here in the dawn of glass cockpits, we're all adapting to various presentations, and to radically-different scans during primary instrument failure, such as EFIS shutdown. It's like US President Ronald Reagan said: "Trust but Verify".
"There are alot of illusions at night that can seriously detriment a pilots ability to safely fly the aircraft. The one i fear the most is somatogravic effect. Essentially the feeling of acceleration is interpretted as a pitching up motion. This can result in the pilot pushing down on the control column and inadvertantly spearing the aircraft into the ground. I've been put through this illusion in a simulator and its quite scary."
Yes, it can be. We do learn to adapt, and to evaluate conditions. Flight visibility is something aviators should learn to evaluate in much more detail than is officially encouraged. At night, there is a world of difference between a "Bomber's Moon" and a new moon, or no moon. Ground contrast varies dramatically. In winter, I sometimes land on frozen lakes at night. Depending on conditions, it can be visually astounding- or confounding.
"To be honest night flying is probably my favourite, simply because the air is usually quite smooth with little or no turbulance and i'm always one who loves to see city lights"
I think it's the best time to introduce people to flying- It can be astoundingly beautiful, is (as you say) usually smoother, and passengers and novice pilots are not usually aware of the dangers of the dark and how we manage them.
Again, congratulations on your Instrument Rating. Clouds are intrinsic to our great ocean of air, and those unfortunate pilots who must avoid them are so much less free. Keep learning! Giving recurrent training, I often find rated Instrument Pilots who drone through the clag much like neophyte night passengers- In blissful ignorance of what can go wrong, and what must be done about it. Keep developing the habit of thinking through what can go wrong, and what should be done in what sequence to deal with it. The only way that boredom creeps into the cockpit is by complacency.
