In the last year or two I have noticed that an increasing number of pilots are fitting attitude indicators to their microlight/permit aircraft.
I find this a rather worrying trend as all of the people that I know who have fitted them have never had any instrument training in their life! Not to mention the fact that aircraft they are fitted to are not certified for flight in IMC!
When I have asked these people why the fit them they tell me it is in case they encouter poor conditions en-route.
Surely it would be better airmanship to;
a) study the forecast and plan accordingly so as to not encounter these conditions in the first place.
b) if you do encounter poor vis/cloud TURN ROUND!

In one case, I came across a couple of microlighters who had turn co-ordinators fitted but no AI. They would climb their aircraft in loose formation through cloud mistakingly using the turn co-ordinator as an AI. They seemed to think that the little aircraft on the face of the instrument was giving them AoB information as opposed to rate of turn, which is the intruments correct use! Effectively they were both flying partial panel with no secondary instruments, with no instrument flying experience in aircraft that are not certified for flight in IMC. Without any form of RAS/RIS. Not too mention the fact it breaches the ANO.
I explained to them the error of their ways, but they still seemed oblivious to the dangers they were putting themselves and others in.

I feel that if people with no instrument training continue to fit these instruments to their aircraft and feel that it will get them home if they encounter poor vis/cloud, I think that we will see a marked increase in the number of CFIT/loss of control due to disorientation accidents in the near future.

I have done a fair bit of microlight/light aircraft flying and never put myself in a position where I would encounter IMC. I am also a professional aviator, and never flown in such a way that I would have been likely to have to fly un-planned IMC or likely to have encountered inadvertent IMC (Despite having to flying in some dogsh*t weather!) as both are pretty serious situations to be in. The latter being life threatening unless dealt with quickly.

Why do people with no instrument experience fit these items to their aircraft?
At best they look nice on the panel and take up some weight, at worst they will potentially kill somebody!

Rant over!
:mad:

The turn coordinator or turn indicator does most certainly indicate bank angle provided that the aircraft is in balance (the turn coordinator being a very poor relation of the turn indicator!). What it never shows is pitch information.

Agree however that trying to muck about untrained in IMC or even in an uncertified aircraft is dangerous for more than simply the occupants of the aircraft.

But, today many permit aircraft (microlight, VLA, JAR/FAR23 etc are used as training aircraft following a sylabus that requires training in "instrument appreciation" and it is a tad difficult to give anyone an appreciation of an empty pannel.

Most pilots fitting AIs to Microlights are the pilots who trained on JAR/FAR23 aircraft fitted with AIs and are unable to turn the aircraft unless that have an instrument to tell them their angle of bank and can't take-off if there isd any chance that they will exceed a 15 deg angle of bank below 5000ft!

If you see something dangerous there is a place to report it otherwise nothing gets done!.....and this isn't the place!

The problem today is that after the accident the talk usually goes like....."yea, I was only saying last week to the barman that the idiot was going to kill himself doing that, yak, yak, yak"...........pity that the instructors at many places round the UK don't act a proactively in flight safety as instructors found in places like the US and other European countries!

Regards,

DFC

I'm unconvinced by some of the arguments above. I see more permit aircraft than most, and rarely do I see a turn co-ordinator, and only a little more often an AI. Slip balls are often mandatory, but that's a different beastie.

Also, the NPPL syllabi do not contain instrument awareness so far as I'm aware, and training for the JAR licence in permit aircraft is extremely rare.

Further - I agree that flight into IMC on a regular basis by untrained pilots, in aircraft with handling qualities not designed for it is extremely dangerous. But I don't recall any significant number of reported accidents as a consequence.


So, my instinct is to believe that this is this is largely a non-problem. A few pilots fit AIs and even turn co-ordinators as "get out of gaol cards", most of them have enough instrument training to know how to use them. Yes, I'm sure a few of those then do routinely fly into IMC, and that's naughty - but it's clearly not killing them, or we'd have noticed the wrecked aircraft scattering the countryside.

G

Speaking as an IMC rated pilot who is building a permit a/c with a full panel……

I have nearly 800 hours of serious touring time. Most of this has been in c of a aircraft and more than once I have encountered tricky conditions which were technically VMC but in which having the kit made life much less work. Crossing the channel is a common one. I am also of the opinion that having the kit and not needing it is much better than wishing you had it!

Even basic PPL is trained to do a 180 in cloud. It is much harder to do this if you do not have an AI. I think most Permit aircraft are fitted with all the kit because builders follow the standard layout, rather than some deep plot to die trying to fly in IMC with no training.

Rod1

Climbing out of a mid summer L2K, in a Rans S6, towards a bright 6000ft inversion, I could see every sense in having one fitted. The aircraft was always in VMC, but it was much nicer flying with an AI to show we were indeed wings level whilst climbing.

Of course, anyone who uses it to enter IMC, with no training, deserves all they get. As others have said, the stats indicate that either they are not doing this, or they are doing it much more proficiently than you give them credit for. I suspect the former.

DFC: A turn coordinator shows rate of turn and NOT bank angle. In a turn coordinator the rate gyro is mounted slightly differently to a turn indicator and will therefore also show rate of bank.

The microlight syllabus does not include any instrument appreciation training, I don’t believe the NPPL does either but I’d have to check that.

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at here!
“Most pilots fitting AIs to Microlights are the pilots who trained on JAR/FAR23 aircraft fitted with AIs and are unable to turn the aircraft unless that have an instrument to tell them their angle of bank and can't take-off if there isd any chance that they will exceed a 15 deg angle of bank below 5000ft!”

Genghis: In a few places I have flown at in the UK I have definitely noticed more people fitting these instruments.

Using these instruments in permit aircraft as “get out of gaol cards” is never a good idea whether you are qualified to fly on instruments or not. I would agree that people who are trained and indulging in this activity are unlikely to kill themselves, however I am referring to people who have not had any training using instruments as “get out of gaol cards”. Just because they haven’t killed themselves yet does not mean they won’t!

Rod1 & bar shaker: If you are flying VMC your priority should be LOOKOUT! I have flown right down to the limits of VMC and never felt the need for an AI. In poor vis you should be looking out even more for other aircraft.

Regards,

Jucky

Ah yes, the trick of course is to stay out of gaol in the first place. But, the fact is that VMC-only aircraft, or VMC-only pilots do occasionally transgress. Having the AI is no excuse for allowing yourself to get into that situation, but even whilst flying a gentle 180° out of cloud an AI (combined with some instrument training) would be a big bonus.

Worthy of mentioning that anybody fitting these should also get the installation approved by PFA or BMAA, or they could be in even bigger trouble if it ever gets spotted.

G

Hmmm, those cavalier microlight pilots again ? Is there any evidence at all that the microlight community is any more susceptible to human factors and failings than GA in general ? (I fly both)

More importantly, my own three axis microlight doesn't have strobes or other "safety" equipment fitted either because of current weight limitations. However I tend to agree with Jucky; I can think of many other features I would fit on my aircraft before an AI and would question the prioritisation logic involved.

The application of airmanship is the decisive factor but I don't think there is any evidence that the questionable installation of these instruments is encouraging any (greater :} )degree of stupidity or delusional behaviour on the part of the pilots concerned. One other point is that we have all, I am sure, been caught out to some degree by the quirks of UK weather and perhaps it is better to be equipped with some kind of palliative solution than nothing at all.

The PFA thought the fitting of AI etc was a good Idea, given British weather, but it was not a mandatory requirement. The criteria used were does the instillation follow “common aviation practice”. The PFA also have a working group investigating getting the night and IMC restrictions lifted on certain aircraft types, so hopefully my plastic fantastic will one day become IMC capable. If this happens, expect the few similar aircraft flying with no AI to be worth a lot less. Of the 30 or so MCR01’s flying in the UK I think all but two have an AI.

I fail to see why a C of A aircraft and a permit aircraft are any different on this point. The Katarna, for example, is fitted with all the kit but is restricted to VMC.

If I want to maintain my blind flying skills all I need is a safety pilot and I can and will practice. To me this is the same as practicing PFL’s, it is part of the preparation in case all hell brakes loose. I have only been caught out badly by weather once, but again I would rather call Pan and attempt an instrument approach, than spin in 30 sec after entering an unexpected situation. The one is 99% likely to be ok and the other is 99% likely to kill me. Remember, in the US, kit built aircraft routinely fly in cloud, providing the pilot in suitably qualified.

Rod1

For an aircraft to be cleared for deliberate IMC flying you need:-

- A certain high standard of handling qualities
- Certified instruments
- Certified engine(s)
- Certain systems (such as the vacuum) to be duplicated.

My understanding from having sat in on a few meetings with Francis on this subject, is that not much of this will be negotiable for PFA aircraft to be cleared for IMC. So, your plastic fantastic is likely to stay VFR only for the foreseeable.

Please don't ask me to either support or criticise this position, you can see the arguments for and against clearly enough without my help. But, that's the position.

G

When I designed the panel there was no possibility of IMC. Now there is, but no full panel, no chance. If I had not fitted all the kit I could not have kept my IMC rating etc etc so it was an obvious fit in my case.

Certain systems (such as the vacuum) to be duplicated.

Most of your points are in agreement with my research, but this is not. Remember, even the CAA allow all electric aircraft to fly in IMC provided the backup electrical system is well thought out. My AA5 had no duplicate vacuum system, and most of the C of A fleet does not.

Rod1

As the part-owner of a PFA aircraft with a nearly-full panel, I'm very glad it's there. Especially, as some have already said, when crossing the channel.

In fact, the AI on my aircraft is faulty, and only works intermitently. Crossing large bodies of water in anything other than perfectly clear conditions takes a bit of concentration if the AI decides to play up.

As for pilots who "are unable to turn the aircraft unless that have an instrument to tell them their angle of bank and can't take-off if there is any chance that they will exceed a 15 deg angle of bank below 5000ft", I suspect that most pilots who fall into this category have in IMC or IR, and don't do enough VFR flying - although I have no doubt there are a small number of VFR-only pilots who fall into this category. Personally, I barely even notice my instruments in good weather... but the amount I look at them increases as the weather gets worse. If the weather happens to be particularly grotty, but still legal and safe VFR, I try to make a point of taking my students (assuming they are experienced enough) on a local flight just to teach them how to use the instruments to back up their visual flying.

FFF
-------------

Hmmm, those cavalier microlight pilots again? Is there any evidence at all that the microlight community is any more susceptible to human factors and failings than GA in general? (I fly both) There was a similar fear-mongering thread three or four weeks ago, wherein spurious concerns were voiced about dangerous glider pilots. :ouch: As you might expect, those making the (nonsensical) allegations had little or no personal experience of soaring, and many unfair remarks and impractical suggestions were made.

Water off a duck's back ... don't let it get you down.

MLS-12D: I am an experienced microlight pilot, Group A and helicopter pilot! (I’ve even done a little bit of gliding too)
The intent is not to scare monger or slag off microlight pilots. The intent is to highlight the fact that there are some idiots out there, who will bring down the rest of the microlight fraternity with their stupidity!

If some aircraft owners, microlight or otherwise, choose to fit expensive instrumentation that they are untrained to use, it's no skin off my nose (or yours).

If some pilots decide to fly in weather conditions that they are neither legally nor practically qualified for, they risk prosecution or worse. But this is hardly a new phenomenon; nor is it confined to microlights.

There are idiot pilots in every segment of aviation. Just like there are moronic car drivers, physicians, solicitors, policemen, etc. etc. But the old world keeps on spinning around ...

With the greatest possible respect: I still believe that you are worried about a non-issue.

Genghis,

There is no requirement for duplicate vacuum system on most C of A aircraft eg C150/172 and PA28 series etc.

However, redundancy is built into the system by having the turn coordinator electrically powered when the AI and DI are air driven.

Most IR rated pilots will declare a PAN if in IMC and avoid IMC at all costs if VMC when they are put in a limited pannel situation. That should be a warning to IMC rated pilots who think that they can pop through a bit of IMC in any partially equipped aircraft.

----

Jucky,

"A turn coordinator shows rate of turn and NOT bank angle. In a turn coordinator the rate gyro is mounted slightly differently to a turn indicator and will therefore also show rate of bank"

Keeping the aircraft in balance (ball in the middle) explain how you turn the aircraft without banking?

A rate 1 turn requires a specific bank angle ((Speed in Kt/10)+7)............thus at 120Kt in a balanced rate 1 turn the angle of bank is (120/10)+7= 19degrees.

Thus using the turn co-rodinator or turn indicator when is says rate 1 at 120Kt the bank angle is 19 degrees.

Of course the most important bank angle indicated by the turn indicator or turn co-ordinator is the one that says zero i.e. wings level.

That is how the turn indicator and turn coordinator tell me my bank angle when the AI is U/S.

Regards,

DFC

DFC: I do agree with your last post. I didn't realise you were looking at it that way.

Jucky

I fly a Permit aircraft with an AI and Turn Indicator. During my biennial flight with an instructor I invariably do some instrument and limited panel work, including recovery from unusal attitudes. I couldn't do it without them and I would be a poorer pilot as a result.

The fact that I have the instruments does not turn me into an idiot, any more than the fact that your car can exceed the speed limit means that you do so.

A logical extension of your thinking would be to ban non-IMC/IR pilots from hiring aircraft with AI's, and since they're not allowed to enter IMC then while we're at it why not remove the instrument appreciation from the PPL syllabus altogether?:rolleyes:

People do stupid things because they do not recognise the risk they are running. If they think they can safely enter IMC with no training then it is their training that is at fault, not the equipment of their aircraft.