Are IMC/IR pilots safer? [Archive]

Fuji Abound

30th Oct 2008, 22:46

The main objective of an IMC rating is to teach the pilot a new set of skills.

These skills obviously encompass the components necessary to fly by sole reference to instruments and to navigate using radio aides.

These skills in themselves do not make the pilot any better, other than in respect of his ability to fly in instrument conditions. To that extent the pilot with an IMC rating is better equipped to fly on instruments and therefore far more capable of dealing with inadvertent IMC.

In reality, for a pilot who wishes to fly regularly and over distance in this country with a reasonable expectation of reaching his destination inadvertent IMC is an ever present risk. By this I mean that if a pilot has a deal of experience in reality he is likely to fly in more marginal VMC. As soon as you start operating on the margins, the closer you get to inadvertent IMC.

That aside, in all other respects there is no substitute for experience and recurrent training. It is inevitable that in 1,000 or more hours of flying you will experience a fair few “situations”. You will have developed an appreciation of your personal capabilities and you will at times have pushed these boundaries to varying degrees and survived.

If you were to offer me a pilot with 100 hours with or without an IMC, I would take the one with the IMC, if you were to offer me a pilot with 1,000 hours or the one with 100 hours and an IMC I would take the former every time assuming conditions were no worse than marginal VMC.

Offer me a pilot who was competent to fly aeros and I would rate that “qualification” as far more significant than an IMC rating once again assuming nothing worse than marginal VMC. In my experience, aside from CFIT, almost all other fatal accidents are ultimately caused by loss of control - an inability of the pilot to deal with a departure from controlled flight, notwithstanding the reason for that departure. A pilot who is competent to fly aeros will be more likely to retain control of the aircraft and it will take a great deal of experience to compensate for the skill learnt to fly an aircraft at or close to the limit of its envelope. Moreover a pilot with this training is less likely to depart from controlled flight in the first place.

IO540

30th Oct 2008, 23:00

In my experience, aside from CFIT, almost all other fatal accidents are ultimately caused by loss of control - an inability of the pilot to deal with a departure from controlled flight,I think that depends on how you define a CFIT.

If you define it as flying in IMC, a perfectly straight line, level altitude, into a mountain, (my definition) and preferably on autopilot while pouring themselves a cup of tea, then I agree with you :) If I get killed one day that will probably be how it will happen... but I have EGPWS so hopefully not!!

But loads of pilots get killed because they are in worsening VMC conditions, don't make crucial decisions early enough, cutting off their escape route, get trapped, and then they hit the ground, but probably not in much of a controlled flight.

I have found myself in such conditions just once. Flying into Switzerland from France, I thought the hills looked a lot taller than then map showed. The gap between them and the cloudbase was barely more than 700ft. We could almost see the markings on the cows (but they were European funded cows so above average size) and the vis was good, and cloudbase not lowering, and the clouds were not thick so an emergency climb would be OK, and turnback below cloud always possible, so I flew on. Eventually we landed at Grenchen, and I had a really good look at the chart. This stupid Swiss "ICAO chart" had a mixture of feet and metre elevations; apparently their military uses metres!

I am not sure that aerobatic expertise helps if one can barely see anything out of the window. Aerobatic flight, from the miniscule amount I know about it, is massively reliant on outside visual references, various angles to the visible horizon, etc.

Fuji Abound

30th Oct 2008, 23:44

I have clearly explained myself poorly.

If the aircraft is reasonably under control, but collides with the ground (or a mountain, mast or anything similiar), the pilot has unfortunately become a culprit of controlling his aircraft into the scenery. The scenerio can occur in IMC, marginal VMC or even VMC.

Almost all other accidents occur because the pilot in the first instance has lost control. Accidents in the circuit are the usual culprit, be it stalling on the base turn, allowing the aircraft to become slow on final, to a botched attempt to turn back to the runway after an engine failure. Add in to these events loss of control following an engine failure en route, loss of control in turbulence, and show boating and you have covered almost all the scenerios, with the exception of loss of control in IMC.

I agree that the pilot being squeezed in the scud may lose control before the impact, but even in this situation I would suggest a pilot with aero experience is likely to hang on to control for longer, which might just enable his escape.

In the event of loss of control as outlined (as opposed to CFIT) a competant aerobatic pilot is in my opinion far more likely in the first instance to recognise control is about to be lost and in the second instance is far more likely to react correctly and sufficiently quickly to ensure the best chance of regaining control. Moreover, he is more likely to have the skills at his disposal to better cope with some of the scenarios that can lead to loss of control in the first place - for example a turn in a valley, to avoid the valley head which has become hidden in cloud, or a difficult approach into a forced landing site.

In short a pilot with aero training is far more likely to be aware of operating the aircraft close or beyond its flight envelope and how to regain that envelope in an emergency.

I would even go as far as suggesting that many pilots who regularly fly aeros (whether or not they have a formal instrument rating) are probably better than most at handling the aircraft in IMC, be it on partial panel or following loss of control in IMC for other reasons. The first time the top of the loop enters cloud is always an interesting event as is maintaining an aerobatic routine in VMC that most pilots would consider to be IMC!

IO540

31st Oct 2008, 07:33

Presumably that is why the FAA CPL includes the chandelle - a maximum-performance climbing 180 turn. I really enjoyed those :) At full power, starting at Va, the TB20 climbs 1500ft by the time it is finished.

BackPacker

31st Oct 2008, 09:05

The first time the top of the loop enters cloud is always an interesting event as is maintaining an aerobatic routine in VMC that most pilots would consider to be IMC!

I have flown some aerobatics in marginal aerobatics conditions (let's not call them MVFR because it was OK for straight and level) and I have to admit I agree with your posts. But I never thought my aerobatics experience, limited as it is, would help me fly IMC.

First time I inadvertently entered cloud in an aerobatics routine I was actually intending to do a half cuban. But when I had my sight of the horizon back after the top of the maneuver I was already 60 degree pitched down so a split second decision converted this in a full loop straight away.

There is another caveat why it is not a good idea to combine aeros with IMC and that is that after a moderately complex maneuver, all your gyro instruments have toppled and need some time (seconds to minutes) to recover. In case of the DI, it doesn't recover at all to the correct compass heading but needs to be reset manually. Depending on the exact internal workings, this may already apply to your AH after an inadvertent spin where you reach something like 45 degrees bank and 60 degrees pitch down. (The AH in our aerobatics plane has an additional degree of freedom so it is not representative for a typical IFR aircraft, an all other aircraft we have are prohibited from intentional spinning, so there is no way for me to know of verify what the exact limit would be. But even our AH is off by 30 degrees bank or so after a cuban eight - this was very unnerving to the 1800 hour B737 ATPL I flew aeros with a few weeks ago.)

I have no IMC/IR, but is this something that's being taught in an IMC/IR course when talking about unusual attitude recovery?

tuscan

31st Oct 2008, 09:15

Fuji,

I agree with you and would feel much safer in the aircraft of a high hour ppl with aerobatic quals rather than a low to medium hours pilot with IR or IMC.

I have also noted on a personal level that those with their own aircraft can also become complacent ie: "nobody knows my plane better" and other cliches you will have undoubtably heard before.
I am not suggesting that you r average pilot with say a thousand hours including an IR in his own plane is unsafe, but they do tend to have a certain confidence and cockieness that may catch them out one day.

I also know of a few glider pilots who regard themselves as far safer than any motorised pilot due to their better understanding of weather and blah blah blah.

Personally I get at least one flight a year with a cfi just to brush up and highlight any bad habits that may be forming.

englishal

31st Oct 2008, 09:58

Yes, instrument skills make you safer. They make you fly more accurately, whether in cloud or not, and entering cloud is no issue. Also Aerobatic skills and advanced handling courses make you safer.

In fact the FAA recognise that ALL further training make a pilot safer, which is why their training is geared towards encouraging further training - something which Europe sadly doesn't seem to recognise as can be seen from their philosophy towards national ratings etc....The UK, with the IMCr did recognise this, but now thanks to the United States Of Europe we shall see this valuable rating disappear in the near future......

tuscan

31st Oct 2008, 10:54

I agree that extra training makes you safer but going back to what Fuji pointed out, experience counts. A 100hr pilot with a shiny new IR qual is not nescessarily safer than a thousand+ hour ppl.

Droopystop

31st Oct 2008, 11:17

I think a gash pilot VMC is going to be a gash pilot with an IMCR. It is more down to the individual's attitude rather than the number of bits of paper. It is proper planning that IMHO is the best way of increasing safety.

However if you have the right approach to aviation, any further training and experience has to be beneficial.

mm_flynn

31st Oct 2008, 12:44

Having looked at Octobers AAIB bulletin (a totally invalid statistical sample) I see

2 Taxi accidents (broadly not looking where going)

4 departure accidents (3 departure stalls of which 2 fatal)

2 Landing accidents both involving inclement weather but both in VMC

Looking back at the other quite serious accidents, they have generally involved flight into IMC (or into terrain while possibly trying to avoid IMC) (some of them bizarrely have been current IR/IMC and in capable aircraft but still wound up planning to fly MVMC/IMC in mountains :eek:). There were also two mid-airs and one IR pilot descending too early on an approach.

An IR/IMC doesn't help with the 8 in October or the mid-airs but does (when coupled with recent experience and an appropriate aircraft) with the 'continued VFR into IMC' which is probably the biggest fatal risk after takeoff accidents.

IO540

31st Oct 2008, 12:53

some of them bizarrely have been current IR/IMC and in capable aircraft but still wound up planning to fly MVMC/IMC in mountains

Probably a lot of these were > 2000kg, hence..........

englishal

31st Oct 2008, 18:24

A 100hr pilot with a shiny new IR qual is not nescessarily safer than a thousand+ hour ppl.
No, but put two 100 PPLs next to each other and I know who I'd rather fly with. Now put two 1000 hr ppls together, one who's been flying and using instrument since 100 hrs.....I know which would be the better pilot again.

scooter boy

2nd Nov 2008, 08:22

Having an IR myself I am heavily biased here but...

If a pilot has completed and remained current with an IMC rating then that demonstrates a commitment to training beyond PPL that is laudable.

If a pilot has gone further and commited even more time to an IR and remained current then that demonstrates even more investment in training and safety.

The same could be said for CPL, CFI, ATPL etc... great to have all these.

A familiarity with the aircraft and its systems also is crucial.

A healthy respect for the weather is also something that one acquires through baptism in CB.

The proviso here to all of the above is that good judgement (as we all all know) can be nether bought nor taught. It comes with experience and each of these licenses is a license to learn. The experiences we acquire both good and bad influence our decision making and the degree of safety reserve we require before accepting a flight or not.

Furthermore, it is always good to fly with other pilots - we can easily get sloppy otherwise and pursuance of a further rating does definitely sharpen us up both practically and academically.

As far as the desirability of aerobatic experience goes I would have to disagree on this one for several reasons.

Firstly - I never hand fly in IMC, hardly anyone does. The autopilot does a far better job than I can when we are in the soup. George takes care of things above 500'agl and does a fine job. He does not fly like an aerobatic pilot with full control inputs, he gently corrects and retrims. My role is to manage the complex systems of the aircraft and ensure that George is taking care of things. No autopilot = no penetration of cloud for me (unless it is a thin layer of stratus) single pilot IMC at night is tough enough without the additional need to hand fly.

Secondly - perhaps I am just unlucky but in the type of IMC that I would regard as "real IMC" (i:e not just popping up or down through a couple of hundred feet of smooth ice free stratus), I am often in moderate turbulence (sometimes with icing). I am usually throttled back to maneuvering speed and descending to get rid of ice accretions. The last thing my airframe needs when I am in the tumbledrier is full aerobatic style control inputs. Avoidance of acceleration is crucial here and if things get really bad I will sometimes even pop the gear down to reduce my aircraft's ability to accelerate and increase inertia in the airframe. I also know from experience that I can sometimes not even touch the panel when in real turbulence never mind make smooth meaningful control inputs. My soft pink body is not as able to maintain straight and level as the autopilot and although my hand is poised to take over should George throw the towel in my first action after regaining an acceptable attitude would be to re-prime the autopilot and allow the machine to get on with it once again.

Thirdly - most aeros are not flown on instruments. Additionally no aerobatic aircraft is equiped as an IFR tourer and no IFR tourers are approved for aeros.

Avoidance of overcontrol is why the Robinson helcopter company was moved to issue a safety bulletin some time ago about high time fixed wing pilots converting to helicopters. There was a very high attrition rate among fixed wing pilots who had converted and this was felt to be due to overcontrolling. You just cannot get away with handling the T-bar cyclic of a Robinson the same as you would the control stick in a fixed wing aircraft. The exact same principle holds true for trying to put in full control inputs in real bumpy IMC, you are far more likely to break the aircraft.

When it gets really bad, slow down, put the deicing on, figure out whether you need to climb or descend to escape the ice, let the autopilot take are of you and don't try to be a hero.

To all the VFR pilots out there. Clouds are not cotton-wool-ball-like-soft-fluffy-things. They are bumpy and rough and sometimes full of ice and hail (they can even very occasionally have granite and aluminium in them) and they will try to kill you, so stay away unless you and the aircraft are suitably equiped and current.

SB

Fuji Abound

2nd Nov 2008, 09:20

SB

I am flattered by your frequent references to aerobatic pilots and aerobatic inputs but their relevance is lost (on me).

Only an instrument rated pilot is a safe pilot in IMC.

On the other hand a safe pilot is one that will avoid conflicts with the terrain. Almost always (other than controlled level flight into the scenery because you had no idea it was there) accidents happen as a result of loss of control. A stall on the base turn is a loss of control, a stall on final is a loss of control, a botched return to the runway following an engine failure on departure is a loss of control, impacting the scenery too fast following an engine failure is a loss of control, the list goes on.

An instrument pilot does spend most of his time fly George. An instrument pilot is concerned about "gentle" inputs. In fact, an instrument pilot risks insufficient hand flying time.

When things go wrong its almost certainly hand flying skills that will count - I dont see George being of help when he has tripped out in the climb trying to maintain trim and rate as the airframe accumulates ice - what I do see as counting is a pilot that can recognise where the aircraft is within the envelope, and what can and should be done to ensure the aircraft remains within a manageable envelope. In that respect an aerobatic pilot may have the edge, because he is accustom to operating close or beyond the edge of the envelope and he is accustom to reacting quickly and appropriately.

I was never suggesting aerobatic skills in IMC were helpful, although come to think about it I'd pick a instrument pilot with aerobatic experience to fly me in IMC rather than one with plain instrument skills. ;)

In short instrument flying is a discipline in its own right - there is no substitute. However, instrument pilots are no more or less immune from ulitmately relying on sound hand flying skills when things go badly wrong, pilots with aerobatic skills (and dare I say also pilots who fly tail wheel aircraft) have the best hand flying skills around - accept no substiute!

Additionally no aerobatic aircraft is equiped as an IFR tourer and no IFR tourers are approved for aeros.

As a point of order, you are wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong even as regards aircraft with a G on the side!!

Droopystop

2nd Nov 2008, 10:11

When things go wrong its almost certainly hand flying skills that will count - I dont see George being of help when he has tripped out in the climb trying to maintain trim and rate as the airframe accumulates ice

Absolutely. In fact George may well be a distraction in this scenario.

- what I do see as counting is a pilot that can recognise where the aircraft is within the envelope, and what can and should be done to ensure the aircraft remains within a manageable envelope. In that respect an aerobatic pilot may have the edge, because he is accustom to operating close or beyond the edge of the envelope and he is accustom to reacting quickly and appropriately.

I think that if you are approaching the edges of the airframe and/or pilot envelope in IMC, you shouldn't have been there in the first place. If during the planning stage of the flight you suspect icing and turbulence might affect the flight, you have to ask yourself "if things start to go wrong, do I have the training and experience to cope and is the aircraft properly equiped?" If the answer is no, then the ground is the place to be, or at least a change of plan is required. So in that respect, I would rather fly with someone who said "I'm not happy to go" regardless of experience and training. You wouldn't expect commercial pilots to take such risks with you as a passenger, so why allow it to happen when you are doing it for fun?

Recovering from unusual attitudes in IMC is a purely Instrument discipline. I don't think that an aerobatic pilot would necessarily be better placed, other than they may have a more disciplined approach to their aviation and wouldn't have allowed the situation to develope in the first place.

wsmempson

2nd Nov 2008, 10:48

In answer to the initial question "are IMC/IR pilots safer?" (and I assume you mean "...safer than VMC qualified pilots?"), regardless of conditions, the answer is almost certainly "yes", as any continuation of flight training must be a 'good thing'. The caveat here is that in VMC, the IFR skills have to be used in conjunction with the VFR skills - rather than instead of them.

In IMC conditions, the answer is definitely "yes" - just so long as the pilot is current. Herein lies a problem with the attitude toward the IMCR of it being merely a "get out of trouble" rating, used to deal with unexpected poor weather, rather than something to be used actively.

I would contend that unless the holder of the rating actively uses it, the skills that have been acquired, atrophy surprisingly quickly. This can lead to an unfortunate situation where a pilot can eventually find himself in conditions for which he is 'rated', but too rusty to cope with.

I think continuing to refer to the IMCR as a "get out of trouble" card discourages IMCR pilots from practicing their skills down to suitable minimums; It's rather more than that - but I'd be the 1st to say that it is not an I/R.

Airbus Girl

2nd Nov 2008, 11:19

I think the safest pilots are the ones that have the right attitude, regardless of their qualifications.

I have met and heard of countless pilots who did an IMC rating a while ago, and think of it as a full instrument rating...ie. they are quite happy to go flying when the weather is rubbish, knowing they will be flying on instruments. These same pilots, most of the time, seem to think that pre-flight planning is for wimps. They are usually the ones that we see in the accident reports, losing control and/or flying into granite.

Any pilot who fully recognises the limitations of their skill, currency and qualifications is a good pilot.

I hold a full IR and have done for many years. I've got thousands of hours flying on instruments. However, if I was going to hire an aircraft I am not that familiar with, or haven't got loads of currency in, I would raise my own limits - to me, that would mean not flying in bad IR weather until I am full current (ie. flying in instrument conditions every day), and increasing landing minimas to what I am happy with, giving myself a good amount of safety margin.

I really don't understand the people who say "well I have an IMC rating, I've flown 3 approaches in the last year so I am going to take off (in crap weather), fly to xyz and I can use my GPS to find the airfield and if I need to I can fly the VOR approach coz I have an IMC rating so I know what I am doing".

These people scare me.

No-one should ever consider an IMC rating as a proper instrument rating. If you have one, then keep it current (I mean, really current) or forget you have it. You shouldn't get yourself into the point of needing to use it but if you do then at least you should be able to get yourself out of trouble, land, and understand how you can avoid the situation the next time.

15 hours is not enough. Imagine if someone could do 15 hours and get a PPL. Yes, they could manage to fly an aircraft. They will probably have already been flying solo. They might think they can fly. So why do the extra hours? It is a similar situation.

PS. I am not trying to say all IMC holders are rubbish because there are some that use the rating wisely and are very stringent on themselves - they ensure they keep it really current and treat it with respect. That is great.

Fuji Abound

2nd Nov 2008, 11:26

I think that if you are approaching the edges of the airframe and/or pilot envelope in IMC, you shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Yes, but if we always got it right there would hardly be any accidents at all. Very few serious / fatal accidents are down to factors entirely outside the pilots control.

Recovering from unusual attitudes in IMC is a purely Instrument discipline.

It is, but many instrument pilots have failed to recover in circumstances that recovery was possible. Whether instrument training and aerobatic training would have given the pilot a greater chance I can only speculate, but I do think when the aircraft is really in an unusual attitude (I accept it should never get that far, but see above) the training an aerobatic pilots has and his stick and rudder skills might place him better.

Yeah, I know it will not happen to you, but it will happen to some hapless pilot, and it will happen time and time again. Many of those pilots will find themselves thinking why me? I always flight within my limits.

How many instrument pilots would do a good job of escaping a spin as they drop through the base?

As the CAA love saying, "safety isnt an accident" - experience protects a pilot from getting into a situation with which he or the aircraft cant cope, training expands and hones that envelope, but when experience and training fail, and the pilot has got himself into a situation with which he or the aircraft cant cope, stick rudder skills, and the ability to recognise that the aircraft is near its limits and to select the most appropriate recovery are vital skills that might just save the day.

So getting back to the original question does an IMC rating make for a safer pilot?

A safe pilot is one who always plans to operate within his and the aircrafts envelope. An IMC rating gives him the skills to operate safetly in instrument conditions. It will enable him to navigate and fly more accurately but whilst that might save him from busting airspace or getting lost ultimately I am not sure it will prevent an accident. It will enable his to deal with inadvertant IMC, but then again so will experience. There are many VMC pilots with many 1,000s of hours who have learnt that trick. However, a safer pilot is one who is the best skilled at securing a safe outcome from an in flight emergency - my point is that an emergency usually ends up with the aircraft close to the limits of its envelope some while before the impact - at that point their is no substitute for handling skills.

I rest my case, and accept you may take an alternative view, which I will read with interest.

Airbus Girl

2nd Nov 2008, 11:47

A safe pilot is one who always plans to operate within his and the aircrafts envelope

Yes, but that requires the pilot to recognise his limits.

However, a safer pilot is one who is the best skilled at securing a safe outcome from an in flight emergency - my point is that an emergency usually ends up with the aircraft close to the limits of its envelope some while before the impact - at that point their is no substitute for handling skills.

No. A safer pilot is one who recognised and understood his limits whilst still on the ground and didn't take off into testing weather in the first place. The aircraft will only end up close to its limits if the initial decisions were wrong. Once airborne a current experienced IR pilot will break the chain of events that lead to a disastrous outcome earlier, thus not getting into a situation that requires higher skills. Lets face it, if that pilot took off into bad weather whilst not current, or overestimated his ability to cope with the conditions then it is unlikely they are also going to be a current aerobatic pilot who can recognise the magnitude of the situation before the crash into the hill.

As the saying goes - it is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Fuji Abound

2nd Nov 2008, 12:11

Airbus Girl

Are you just having a bad day, or am I that bad at explaining myself.

No. A safer pilot is one who recognised and understood his limits whilst still on the ground and didn't take off into testing weather in the first place.

Are we again involved with the art of the bleeding obvious?

That is why I said a safe pilot never plans to get into that situation. Planning of course includes all aspects of pre-flight and in flight.

HOWEVER, it is indeed a very inexperienced pilot who believes he will never be in a situation for which he had not planned (planned NOT trained). I dont suppose the triple 7 pilots planned a double engine failure. I dont suppose any pilot plans for the donkey to stop. I dont suppose there are many instrument pilots who havent found themselves once in a while in conditions a little worse than they planned.

Fortunatley I have not had too many really troubling weather related event. I have been caught in a micro burst. There were no thunderstorms within 40+ miles. Nothing untoward in the forecast. Very first thing in the morning with no reason to have expected any convective build ups. No significant terrain, infact nothing that would have leant me to expect the conditions I encountered. However I can report that I didnt have the performance to climb out of the down draught. If I could have planned to have not been in that bit of air at the time I'd like to know how!

Droopystop

2nd Nov 2008, 13:07

Fuji,

I take your points and see where you are coming from, but I don't think it is ratings that save people, it is airmanship and attitude (planning). Or rather the lack of airmanship/planning that gets people into trouble.

Yes if you have "good airmanship" and have an IMCR, you will be better equiped than you were before you did the course. But just having the IMCR doesn't necessarily make a bad VMC pilot any safer. In fact I agree with Airbus Girl in that it could have a detrimental effect.

Of course there are the truely unforseen circumstances which cause true accidents (ie acts of God), but a very few accidents are caused in such a way and most are down to the organic matter in the front or the organic matter holding the spanner. The 777 double flame out and your micro burst were maybe not predictable, but in both cases there was a happy out come because you/they knew what was happening, knew a likely solution and managed to implement it. So in a way you/they had "planned" for it.

So when I say planning, I mean it in the wider sense of the word rather than the specific drawing of lines and checking of TAFs. It also continues throughout the flight ie thinking that little bit ahead and seeing what is likely to be happening next and what plan b might be if you don't like what you see.

Do people really not plan for the engine to stop? I would have thought that it was constantly in the back of the mind when flying SE (and sometimes flying ME too!)

IO540

2nd Nov 2008, 13:09

it is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

That phrase, straight out of the CAA "safety" seminars, is merely a good excuse for p*ss poor training, nothing else.

In reality, once airborne, you have loads of options - including turning back.

Unless you departed into OVC002 0300 +TSRA or similar in which case you got what you asked for.

Fuji Abound

2nd Nov 2008, 14:01

Do people really not plan for the engine to stop? I would have thought that it was constantly in the back of the mind when flying SE (and sometimes flying ME too!)

Hopefully!

However, consider how many accidents occur in the circuit.

The accidents often occur because the pilot was distracted. Something else was going on, the gear failed to travel, a passenger was being sick, another aircraft was too slow. The pilot gets slow, the aircraft drops a wing - the classic stall, spin.

Poor airmanship - of course. Taught, planned for etc - of course. In the back of your mind on every approach - I am sure. Still happens though. It still happens even with pilots that are flying regularly.

Same thing after an engine failure. Stress, the temptation to stretch the glide into that inviting field, to hold the stick back to squeeeze over that tree, etc.

Stick rudder skills of course dont just come from doing aeros - but it is a hell of a good way for developing a superb feel for the aircraft, and it is a good way of training the brain to do the correct thing to give you the best chance of recovering.

Hopefully it will never happent to you - or me, our superior planning skills will prevent it ;), but should it happen, knowing how to recover might just save your life.

.. .. .. and this business of wishing you were up there etc., well I agre with IO540 for this reason. If you fly often there are occasions you feel comfortable in departing in conditions that are close to your limits. Why? By definition if you set limits, the limits are limiting. If your limit is an overcast of 1,000 feet, if the forecast and METARS support an overcast of 1,200 you may well elect to go. The enroute weather proves to be 15% worse. You are now below your limits. Moreover you planned to be IFR / IMC, and you are. You probably dont know the overcast is 900 feet, until your engine fails and realise 900 feet is not enough to enable you to set up for a forced landing, which is why you set a limit of 1,000 feet in the first place.

The problem with limits is the more you fly the smaller the margin between your limits and what is safe or sensible. As in my example above, you might start with a limit of a base of 1,500 feet. Hopefully more than enough height to set up for a forced landing. You are flying often, gain an IMC, and find that limit restricting. In consequence you impose a limit of 750 feet. In the first case if the forecast is 10% worse than expected you have every chance of a successful forced landing in the second case, you needed all of the 750, 675 is not enough.

Yeah, I know the limit should include a factor for the weather being worse than forecast. However, there are plenty of high time pilots who will fly with a base of 1,000 feet. Would they be comfortable with 800 feet?

There are a fair few ATPLs who have landed within the cross wind limits of their ops manuals, but find themselves picking up the pieces, and their are a fair few who have had a look "around" the limits of their op manual.

This is the real world of GA for most. The disciplines of the commercial world are not as honed because most pilots are prepared to accept a higher degree of risk - in the same way that commercial IMC ops have never been approved for SE in the UK.

Interesting posts, but I do feel some of you are kidding yourself that PPPPPP, is enough to avoid every accident, and that is perhaps more worrying.

FlyingOfficerKite

2nd Nov 2008, 19:07

Safer than what?

Thousands of lines of text, but no one has answered, fully, the original question - only assumed the intent of the questioner and commented accordingly.

If the answer isn't an unreserved 'yes', then the flying training, regulation and revalidation system has failed miserably.

In my opinion it would fail if ALL pilots, with those particular qualifications were tested in the real world to the limits of the ratings in an 'instrument' environment.

In all cases when I have demonstrated to an IMC rated pilot an instrument approach 'for real' it has proved beyond their capabilities - and understandably so.

The 'safety' element is maintained by a more controlled operating environment and the greater understanding by the pilot of his or her limitations and those of the aircraft and systems.

Erode pilot judgement, aircraft capability or systems and the potential for a less safe operation is paramount.

The answer, I suppose, is there is no answer except that evidenced by the flight safety statistics, which in themselves are not conclusive.

KR

FOK :)

PS: Any reference to aerobatics or other applications of flying skill in this context seems absurd?!

wsmempson

2nd Nov 2008, 20:52

Actually FOK, I think you'll find (if you actually read my post) that I did answer the question.:rolleyes:

Fuji Abound

2nd Nov 2008, 21:09

If the answer isn't an unreserved 'yes', then the flying training, regulation and revalidation system has failed miserably.

That would have been an interesting thread then.

I can precise the whole thread for you:

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maybe (some one being really controversial).

I dont know (that one would be your answer).

Yes

Yes

In all cases when I have demonstrated to an IMC rated pilot an instrument approach 'for real' it has proved beyond their capabilities - and understandably so.

If you demonstrated, how do you know it was beyond their capabilities?

.. .. .. and if you let these amateurs have a go, that would be a statistically representative sample of how many?

oh, and why we are on the topic, the last time I did an approach in the right seat with an IR pilot I had to take control - which proves - not a lot.

The IMC rating test requires the pilot to demonstrate an approach to the satisfaction of the examiner. There has been some adverse comment about the quality of the examiners - to which I personally dont subscribe. Just like any instrument pilot the skills were up to scratch at the point of test, and just like any instrument pilot, if those skills lapse the pilot should no longer be flying in instrument conditions.

PS: Any reference to aerobatics or other applications of flying skill in this context seems absurd?!

Thanks, I do apologise for the absurdity of my previous posts, I will try and refrain in future.

However, here are some qutoes you might find helpful:

The integration of aerobatic training concepts and carefully selected aerobatic maneuvers at flight schools providing upset recovery flight courses are critical to the development of a properly aware and self-reliant pilot graduate.

Before I move on to the specific benefits of aerobatics flight training, let me emphasize that all airplanes, from a Boeing 777 to an F-16, to a Cessna 150 are essentially “all-attitude” aircraft. That doesn’t mean that it’s smart to intentionally perform aerobatic maneuvers in a non-aerobatic certified aircraft, but any airplane can end up upside down, or vertical, or anywhere in between. You may not have a choice in the matter, either. Whether due to wake or other turbulence, wind shear, pilot distraction, flight into IMC or other conditions beyond a pilot’s experience level, mechanical failure, or some other cause, you may find yourself and your airplane in an unusual attitude. Airliners and other aircraft with pitch and bank limiters are not necessarily an exception. The first time an unusual attitude situation happens, perhaps with a load of passengers on board or low to the ground, should not be your first exposure to “aerobatic” flight.

In low visibility conditions, or in IMC, a pilot must rely on the instruments to maintain orientation. In VMC, the horizon is available to assist in orientation, and is the only completely reliable “attitude indicator.” Yet pilots who have not received aerobatic training typically do not know where to look to find the horizon when in an extreme unusual attitude.

(In respect of the last you might want to give some thought to how that quote developed).

I appreciate you will disagree. However, what worries me is an inability to think outside the box. It is not so much that you disagree, but you offer no reasons why.

In fact I dont even mind that you disagree with the perceived wisdom of at leats one FAA commercial check pilot, but I do mind that you havent explained why.

Oh, and I guess you are aware of one of the possible responses to a hijack of one of the major airlines - but I would have to shoot myself if I told you.

scooter boy

2nd Nov 2008, 22:09

"I am flattered by your frequent references to aerobatic pilots and aerobatic inputs but their relevance is lost (on me)."

Fuji, you brought the aerobatic connection up - I am not the only one here to recognise the absurdity of this link, managing the aircraft by hand flying it close to the edge of the flight envelope is an absurd concept in serious IMC. I'll take my chances with the autopilot any day, hand flying is a very poor second choice.

"An instrument pilot risks insufficient hand flying time"

I agree in terms of currency in following down the ILS needles on final approach, but straight and level in mod turbulence, the autopilot does a better job than any of us and although we have to be there to back it up I have never needed to do it thus far.

FYI the minimum fit I require for safe IFR flight is way beyond what the CAA mandate (only a magnetic compass as I recall). So in terms of the absurb minimalism of this regulation I am wrong, however in terms of a safe and pragmatic approach to staying alive in testing weather I have no doubt that I am right.

SB

3victorecho

2nd Nov 2008, 22:24

I read that in the US the accident rates for instrument rated pilots are dramatically lower than those without.

I would imagine the same would apply over here for instument rated pilots. Perhaps to a lesser extent for IMC rated pilots, since it is less training and most IMC pilots I have met don't do much actual flying in IMC if any.

Fuji Abound

2nd Nov 2008, 22:38

I am not the only one here to recognise the absurdity of this link, managing the aircraft by hand flying it close to the edge of the flight envelope is an absurd concept in serious IMC.

I give in! Where did I say that! I said an aerobatic pilot has perhaps got a better chance of recovering from unusual attitudes which is the pre-cursor to most fatal accidents. I said that even for a flight in IMC there may be exceptional occasions when these skills give an aerobatic pilot the edge - for example in a spin through the base.

FYI the minimum fit I require for safe IFR flight is way beyond what the CAA mandate

and earlier,

Additionally no aerobatic aircraft is equiped as an IFR tourer and no IFR tourers are approved for aeros.

which I assume is a way out of saying, I am wrong.

In case it isnt, how is this:

The aircraft has - two caged AIs, an electric turn and slip, two FM immune G/Ss / VORs, two altimeters, two radios, both FM immune, one mode S transponder, one digital DME, one NDB receiver, one GNS430, it has four seats, and one G meter - the aerobatic envelope is +6, -4, albeit with only two up. It does all the basic stuff, including flicks. It is not de-iced, there is not much glass, but beyond that it doesnt seem a bad minimium fit, unless you have something more mind.

Any way I give up.

I was simply wishing to introduce another element to the discussion.

Clearly all you aerobatic pilots know what you are talking about because you have done some aeros?

I dont mind that you havent, but I would recommend if you get the chance, and have the inclination, give it a try. You might find it makes you a better pilot, you might even be surprised at how much more confidence it gives you in handling emergencies. You might even find a ring of truth in some of the quotes I gave above, or even one or two of the posts on this thread from pilots who have flown aeros - then again I could be wrong. You might have been quite right to dismiss these opinions. Do let me know.

Any way you can shoot me down now, I have bored everyone enough with a view I believe in strongly, but if my views are so absurd there is nothing further I can add.

Islander2

2nd Nov 2008, 22:45

the autopilot does a better job than any of us and although we have to be there to back it up I have never needed to do it thus far.Interesting debate.

In the sixteen years I've flown my current aeroplane IFR, I've experienced five autopilot failures (3 servos, 2 flight computer). Mine is a 1986 King KFC200 and, talking to others with the same kit, that seems par for the course. Those with the newer KFC225 report a similar story. It may be that the S-TEC and now Garmin autopilots are much more reliable but, given the nature of this system, periodic failures are inevitable.

So, whilst I agree that "hand flying is a very poor second choice" in serious IMC, it's something that you're going to face from time to time. And, perversely, the less you do it, the riskier it becomes. For that reason, I make a point of only hand flying during the 5 to 6 hours of IR continuation training that I undertake on an annual basis. Not a great deal to fall back on, I know, but at least it's something.

Cusco

2nd Nov 2008, 22:57

I'd like to speak up on behalf of granite which is not in a position to defend itself:

It is maligned left right and centre as being the medium that clogs up IMC:

If you look at most of the recent accident in poor weather reports: the granite that is glibly talked about has in fact often been soft mud, often overlain by meadow grass.

So: leave granite alone folks, its not nearly as harmful as you'd think in the right hands.

Cusco

eharding

2nd Nov 2008, 23:08

Fuji,

I did raise an eyebrow about your original assertion, but Scooter Boy has clearly never enjoyed the Yak-18T, which whilst lacking de-ice and, arguably, a second engine, is an admirable example of an aerobatic IFR tourer.

Whether this material inaccuracy brings into doubt the rest of his argument, I don't know.

Plenty of ATPLs down my way who also indulge in the aerobatic 'dark side' - including one, I kid you not, who had to command a fresh 250 hour First Officer on a 737 to put his feet on the rudder pedals when flying the aircraft, said FO insisting he'd been trained not to. Presumably he thought George would help him out with the pedal work.

IO540

3rd Nov 2008, 07:00

Autopilots do fail but even the least reliable ones (KFC225, with its "smoking servos") do work some 99.9% of the time, and using one reduces pilot workload massively, and thus massively increases safety.

Most accidents (under IFR) were directly or indirectly caused by pilot workload, not by a lack of IFR theoretical knowledge :)

englishal

3rd Nov 2008, 08:28

I actually enjoy hand flying in IFR and rarely use the autopilot unless on long boring legs. Even then I prefer to fly most of the time.

The bottom line is that any "advanced" training makes a pilot safer. The IR is probably the hardest rating to do, even harder than the inital PPL some would say....and I agree. By contrast the CPL with is VFR is easy peasy. The skills you learn on an IR make you a more accurate pilot but not only that you do learn when "NOT" to go. Aerobatics are also a good skill to have, and no doubt also increase accuracy but unless the aerobatic pilot knows how to fly on instruments, being aerobatic won't do any good in the cloud (other than recovering from the spin below them :}). By the way the Bulldog I used to fly was IFR certified and would have made a good IFR tourer - or even useful for recovering back from "on top"....

They are bumpy and rough and sometimes full of ice and hail (they can even very occasionally have granite and aluminium in them) and they will try to kill you, so stay away unless you and the aircraft are suitably equiped and current.
Speaking from a SEP / MEP without radar point of view......If they are full of ice, I won't go. If they are too bumpy (Cb's) I won't go and I'll make damn sure I know where the granite is before I go ;)

scooter boy

3rd Nov 2008, 08:39

Hi Fuji,
I am not allergic to aerobatics and yes I have flown aeros in the past.
It was a lot of fun turning the aircraft upside down on a sunny day and I can fully understand why people desire to spend time inverted and feeling Gs although I do not make a habit of it myself.

Nowadays most of my flying is point-to-point and is more about getting there quickly and safely in most weather.

In fact, most of the 300 or so hours I accumulate per annum are through hand flying (half in a helicopter) - so I am not dismissing skills that I do not have - I'm merely stating my point of view :ok:

Fly safely,
SB

Fuji Abound

3rd Nov 2008, 11:17

Scooter Boy / eHarding

Yes, I see.

I wasn’t going to post again, but perhaps I have not explained my self clearly or I don’t understand your point of view.

I was never intending to imply aerobatic pilots are better flying an aircraft in instrument conditions.

The poster asked if an IMC rating made a "better pilot". I don’t think he said does an IMC rating make a better pilot in instrument conditions.

I therefore was advancing the view that if you could either do an IMC rating or an aerobatic course, for me, in VMC, the aerobatic course would advance yours skills further than an IMC rating in terms of handling the sort of emergency that leads to pilots killing themselves.

The area in which I was perhaps not clear was in so far as flying in instrument conditions is concerned. I tried to make it clear there is no substitute for instrument training - this is the only way to fly safely in IMC. However on the periphery of my argument I also advanced the view that in the event of a loss of control in IMC (and I intended to infer a complete loss of control) the aerobatic pilot would do a good job of handling the aircraft, and, in some circumstances, perhaps a better job than the instrument only pilot. I gave the example of exiting the cloud base in a spin or spiral dive. Of course I agree this is a situation an instrument pilot should never find himself in, but I also advanced the view, that life is unfortunately not always black and white. For example, in the quotes I posted, it is possible some totally unforseen event could result in a serious upset in IMC the consequence of which was an aircraft in a fully developed spin or spiral dive. CFIT aside, how many fatal instrument flights end in this way? I would suggest the vast majority, because, other than CFIT, a complete loss of control by definition usually precedes the eventual crash.

I agree these scenarios are extreme emergencies. I also agree by "safer" at first we want I pilot who is as well equipped as possible to deal with any situation that could arise. Any form of instrument training increases the skills of a pilot and therefore is a good thing. In my opinion any training that increases stick rudder skills is also a good thing because in VMC these skills are a significant contributor to recognising loss of control before it happens and, if it does, recovering control. That was the reason I advanced the proposal that if it was a question of only being able to do either an IMC rating or an aero "rating" for a pilot intending to operate in VMC, I personally think the aero "rating" would result in a safer pilot.

Does that explanation help or do we still disagree?