UK PA-30 crash in France [Archive]

IO540

18th Jun 2011, 22:04

According to the post on Flyer, the pilot was awaiting his IFR clearance (or waiting for an amended IFR clearance) at the time

Jim asked to climb and change airways joining point and was asked to stand by.

I don't know anything about the circumstances of this one (e.g. the departure airport) but that is often a very tricky part of an IFR flight. You are without a clearance so have to remain OCAS, have to remain "VFR", but fairly obviously you are not a helicopter so you cannot just hover until ATC get around to getting you the clearance. Normally, you try to fly in the general direction you want to be going, and hope that you don't get too close to CAS etc before you get it. Sometimes the wx in the area is such that you initially fly in a very different direction, to position yourself such that when the clearance arrives you are not asked to fly through a load of cumulus etc. I've had this in Greece where a clearance took maybe half an hour (the controllers were probably asleep, and the visibility was crap), in France (another half an hour), etc. In the UK this happens often because if you depart anywhere on the s. coast going north, ATC want to keep you very low to avoid conflicts with LHR/LGW traffic. You might fly 50nm+ at low level and in these cases you often enter IMC long before you get any ATC service. In the winter, you may also find yourself in icing conditions during this time. So even on an IFR flight you need VFR charts, highly preferably ones running as a GPS moving map so you can see where the terrain and CAS lie.

And same applies to cancelling an IFR clearance, prior to arriving at a VFR-only airport.

N2195B also crashed while awaiting an IFR clearance, though he did get himself severely boxed in by circumstances and his earlier choice of flight rules. N403HP also crashed after having (needlessly in his case) cancelled IFR. Those two were quite "close to home" for me.

AN2 Driver

19th Jun 2011, 21:07

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/GImages/G-AYZE001.jpg

pic by caa.uk

How very sad indeed.

Contacttower

19th Jun 2011, 22:31

Obviously it is incredibly sad that two people have lost their lives but it does pain me slightly also to see such a beautiful aircraft as a Twin Comanche lost.

vanHorck

20th Jun 2011, 08:26

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 08:53

Technically speaking, on an IFR flight if ATC asks you to stand by for your clearance, are you still VFR and therefore responsible for your own flight clear of obstacles?

Does this then imply that one cannot commence such an IFR flight in conditions below VFR minima?

Correct.

In the UK, Class G, an instrument qualified pilot can enter IMC, because IFR in Class G does not require radio contact.

Outside the UK, this is a grey area because there is no possibility of a clearance in Class G anyway.

I am assuming this relates to the activation of an IFR flightplan in the air as opposed to prior to departure?

"We" don't know what flight plan this pilot filed, and those who know are not saying. I assume he had a JAA IR (ME) if he requested an IFR clearance.

It is certainly easier to elevate a flight plan to IFR if you have filed a Z flight plan (which specifies a transition to IFR at a specific waypoint) otherwise ATC have to knock up a routing for you. In the southern UK, this is almost impossible but French ATC can do it pretty quickly (minutes, IME).

englishal

20th Jun 2011, 09:38

Technically speaking, on an IFR flight if ATC asks you to stand by for your clearance, are you still VFR and therefore responsible for your own flight clear of obstacles?
Assuming you are not departing an airfield in CAS - in which case you will get your clearance on the ground before you depart (at least to the edge of their CAS).

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 10:25

In this case the departure was apparently from Lucca LIQL, which is a VFR-only airport.

This is consistent with the pilot flying VFR for quite some distance, along the coast, presumably for sightseeing reasons, before encountering the bad wx near Nice.

Contacttower

20th Jun 2011, 10:48

Is it ever possible to get clearances on the ground via the radio with the area radar unit or over the phone in Europe? Have done the former in the UK and the latter in the US when departing uncontrolled airfields.

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 11:14

Departing an airport in CAS you can get a full departure clearance. This is the standard international situation.

Departing an airport OCAS you get (at most) just a provisional DC e.g. squawk 1234, climb FL050, remain OCAS, on track DVR, contact London Control on 123.45.

Or you get nothing, especially if there is nobody in the tower, or it is a VFR-only airport. In that case you depart and try to fly in the general direction you want to go, while sometimes frantically :) making radio calls to the regional IFR control unit to pick up an IFR clearance before you reach CAS or reach the nearest TCU :)

On the phone... not officially anywhere I know in Europe of but I have heard of it done. It is certainly possible. In the UK, the numbers are unpublished.

vanHorck

20th Jun 2011, 11:22

So one conclusion at least is that transition VFR to IFR is not just a risky business inside the cockpit (Aviate) but also in the Communicate department....

what next

20th Jun 2011, 11:30

Good morning!

In the UK, Class G, an instrument qualified pilot can enter IMC, because IFR in Class G does not require radio contact.

Outside the UK, this is a grey area because there is no possibility of a clearance in Class G anyway. This is no grey area outside the UK, it is plainly and simply forbidden. In class G airspace, you maintain VMC. If unable to do so on your intended route, you turn back. If unable to turn back, you declare and emergency and will receive immediate climb clearance and vectors away from traffic and obstacles.

Every IFR clearance for a flight originating in class G airspace will contain wording similar to this: "IFR starts passing 5000ft, maintain VMC until 5000ft". If unable, you are supposed to tell someone. Or risk crashing into mountains or other traffic instead.

When will this kind of accident ever stop happening? It is totally unnecessary to kill yourself and your passengers in this way. Only to save a few minutes circling while your IFR flight plan gets processed. Or to save the trouble connected to the (possible) consequences of declaring that you have already entered instrument meteorological conditions and need assistance now. With or without flight plan and clearance. Over the years I have seen far too many of these accidents.

S-Works

20th Jun 2011, 11:49

what next

20th Jun 2011, 12:20

It is interesting to note that when these accidents happen it is invariably British pilots involved. Are our IMC in Class G rules and mentality to lax and lead is to pushing it in other countries where the ramifications are much greater? I have known enough pilots from Germany who have taken themselves and their families out in exactly this way. One the them from our airport was especially tragic because he had his girlfriend and her two small children on board. In a Cessna 340 with pressurisation and everything, but he wanted to save a few Euros of Eurocontrol fees by flying VFR from Italy to Germany. He hit the mountains only a few miles from where this one here perished. What an incredibly useless way to die.

And regarding British pilots: Maybe they fly in the (false) assumption that at 1500ft MSL you are safe from both airspace and terrain whatever the flying conditions may be. Inside most parts of UK airspace this assumption may be true, but outside the UK it is only true regarding airspace...

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 12:27

This is no grey area outside the UK, it is plainly and simply forbiddenFair enough; you describe the German situation. My point is that there is no concept of a clearance in Class G so what law is being broken if the pilot has an IR? I guess Germany requires "something" for IFR in Class G but it cannot be a clearance :)

If Germany requires an IFR clearance for IFR in Class G, it is in breach of ICAO airspace classification.

When the FAA has busted pilots for a VFR departure into "obvious" IMC (witnessed from the ground) it busted them not for not having an IFR clearance but for not having filed an IFR flight plan.

Re the bose-x assertion, shall we post links to a load of crashes by non-UK instrument rated pilots?

This pilot, it is implied from the Flyer post saying he was requesting an IFR clearance, had an IR. Obviously this can't be verified. He did have an FAA SE IR which seems to have lapsed in 2005 but that's not relevant on a G-reg. He appears to have had a UK CPL in 2005 (his FAA PPL was based on that). So what does the UK IMCR have to do with this?

S-Works

20th Jun 2011, 12:33

Where did the UK IMCr come into the discussion?

I repeat my QUESTION. Is there a possible connection with the UK's IMC in Class G rules and laxer mentality towards flight in IMC and the number of UK pilots ending up on the side of mountains.

Perhaps it is because we are able to grub hunt around in IMC in Glass G that we carry this mentality outside of the UK and into trouble?

Discussion, not pissing contest.

TWR

20th Jun 2011, 12:35

In France: you can pick up your IFR clearance via the phone. That's why I got the A20 with BT :ok:.

In Belgium: you can fly IFR OCAS. Two-way radio comms is compulsory, though...

You don't need an ATC clerance to fly IFR, but you do need a clearance to enter CAS. People mix those two things up from time to time...

Squeegee Longtail

20th Jun 2011, 12:36

This particular airspace around Nice is very very busy at times. I fly it regularly (did so no more than 2 hours ago) and know that the Nice controllers can keep you waiting for clearance for quite some time (not their fault, just that Nice is France's 2nd busiest airport). There is a lot of terrain around. The wx was horrible so it could have been very stressful up there.

That all said, with the latest (relatively cheap) terrain warning GPS systems around (portable even), why doesn't everyone who flies serious distances/routes either VFR or IFR not use them? Seriously, it buys you peace of mind in such stressful circumstances. Not hitting the ground is one of my main considerations when flying.

I know we don't know these particular crash details, and I am not inferring anything in this particular case, (they may well have had a good GPS terrain system and there were other factors) but in general I see a lot of a/c flying with some quite obsolete kit and always wonder why.

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 12:49

Maybe they fly in the (false) assumption that at 1500ft MSL you are safe from both airspace and terrain whatever the flying conditions may be. Inside most parts of UK airspace this assumption may be true, but outside the UK it is only true regarding airspace...I would think this is unlikely. Few pilots will be that stupid. Everybody knows there are mountains down there.

I think this is a straight case of a loss of SA, facilitated by the pilot not having a GPS with a usable terrain representation/map and, in the final case, not having TAWS/GPWS which would have warned him in an increasingly excited female voice that he was going to kick the bucket if he continued the present trajectory for 2 minutes or whatever.

Often, there are other factors e.g. a desire to avoid Eurocontrol charges (not relevant to the Twin Com which is below 2000kg), or not having a valid IR so not requesting an IFR clearance until absolutely unavoidable. We won't know the paperwork until BEA get around to doing the report in a few years' time.

I must say I find this kind of accident incomprehensible. In general, one's forward vis on a good day is 50-100nm and I would be asking for an IFR clearance many miles before getting anywhere near any IMC/high cloud.

But much is being made of some forum one-liners. Was the pilot actually asking for an "IFR clearance"? If not then he possibly didn't have an IR. I am sure somebody out there knows.

Also the news reports of flying low due to fog doesn't make sense. Fog goes all the way down, usually.

what next

20th Jun 2011, 12:54

If Germany requires an IFR clearance for IFR in Class G, it is in breach of ICAO airspace classification.

In Germany, IFR flight is verboten inside class G airspace. Therefore, there are no IFR clearances for class G either.

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 13:10

Ok; I recall Germany being one of the few countries in Europe where V/Z/Y flight plans are mandated for airports without an IAP.

This is rare in Europe, on the whole.

Fuji Abound

20th Jun 2011, 13:21

It is interesting to note that when these accidents happen it is invariably British pilots involved. Are our IMC in Class G rules and mentality to lax and lead is to pushing it in other countries where the ramifications are much greater?

Bose - that is ridiculous. You know better, so I can only assume you are being provocative, but for what purpose?

vanHorck

20th Jun 2011, 16:10

Well Fuji,

You are asking for the obvious....

Because IO is on line, and he is known to "bite"!
:):):):)

Contacttower

20th Jun 2011, 16:44

In France: you can pick up your IFR clearance via the phone. That's why I got the A20 with BT .

Where are the numbers published?

As far as the IFR clearance theory is concerned; not sure about the airspace around Lucca but I would have thought it a bit odd if he'd flown far enough to reach Mont Agel without getting one if he'd intended to fly IFR from the outset - presumably he could have picked one up before leaving Italian airspace?

Telegraph report names Luchia as the departure point, is that a mistake?

Edit to add: Having read the Flyer thread in its entirety now that gives a better understanding of what the sequence of events was.

TWR

20th Jun 2011, 17:44

You can find the phone nr at the same desk as where you pay the landing fee.

Otherwise "France AIP GEN 3.1-5" is a good start.

And you'll find some good info in the Jeppesen Airway Manual as wel...

bookworm

20th Jun 2011, 17:54

This is no grey area outside the UK, it is plainly and simply forbidden. In class G airspace, you maintain VMC.

Just to reiterate what TWR and others have said, that requirement is peculiar to Germany. Most other states permit IFR in class G, though in Europe, it only seems to be a standard enroute operating practice in the UK. There are IAPs in class G in many states, including France and Belgium.

421C

20th Jun 2011, 18:12

There is a paper here describing circumstances of recent accidents with some potentially common themes to this one:
http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/pplir_files/2011%20agm-cfit%20accident%20review.pdf

I guess whilst CFIT/VFR into IMC seems most likely, we may subsequently find the cause wasn't the ''most likely'. I'm thinking, for example, of the Navajo that crashed after departure from Oxford (IIRC), where it looked like a 'classic' Loss of Control on entering IMC, but it turned out to be pilot incapacitation.

mm_flynn

20th Jun 2011, 21:49

I think this is the main point here.
Why fly along the coast VFR sightseeing (as suggested earlier) and then go headlong into IMC without an advance clearance to do so. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Just do a 180 back to decent viz and sort out your IFR clearance. No use 'fingering' the French controllers because they advised him to stand by.

I suspect this was not your typical VFR sightseeing flight. There are no good Non-oxygen routesnfrom that part of Italy past Nice. You either need to go for FL150 or go via Corsica!!

I would suspect a decision to go vfr and if necessary pick up an enroute IFR clearances (or possibly a Z flight plan with the join after Nice). The weather as posted by BW wouldn't really have given a big concern.

METAR LFMN 171030Z 18009KT 9999 FEW013 BKN130 23/20 Q1017 NOSIG=

From a flyer post it seems the mist at altitude (and maybe sun?) combined to reduce forward viz to 0.

I can imagine sitting there looking down on the Med but with an indistinct forward viz in haze, deciding to try and get an early join but not too worried, coasting in and then suddenly realising you are really IMC and 30 seconds later .....

Of all of the accidents involving IR rated pilots, this one I can see a probable accident chain that could get quite a number of people I know (to be honest including myself - although hopefully the TAWS would have saved the day)

-----------------
Several years ago I did an analysis of weather related accidents and found CFIT/LOC accidents by IR/IMCr pilots in the UK were vanishingly rare. However, there was some circumstantial evidence there were a number (c. 3x as many) overseas fatal accidents of G-reg aircraft in potentially IMC conditions However, the details were not in the AAIB data so it was impossible to evaluate the circumstances. With regard to Bose's point, I suspect the UK has a very IMC tolerant geography as compared to, for instance, the Alps, Rockies, Greenland, etc. Also there may be higher risks when operating outside familiar environments/procedures. This may mean UK pilots are more likely to come to grief on tour - equally it could just be operating IFR in unfamiliar mountains is more risky than in familiar plains.

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 22:39

Also UK pilots are far more likely to be touring France (or anywhere else) than French pilots are likely to be touring the UK (or anywhere else).

So I would expect to see much more UK-based wreckage in France than French-based wreckage in the UK.

it turned out to be pilot incapacitation.

Like most AAIB findings, that was pure speculation, based on the suspected pilot in command having had advanced coronary heart disease.

AN2 Driver

21st Jun 2011, 08:23

Maybe I am totally off track here, but isn't Mont Angel just north of the direct line between the E point and NA, that is one of the VFR avoiding routes around the Nice CTR?

With the METARs of Nice, that could well have lured this crew into believing that they could easily follow that route, yet local conditions were different? The Nice METARs would not really have anyone imagine to encounter IMC that close to nice at that altitude, sometimes however, the "FEW" are exactly where you don't expect them.

Maybe that is why they asked unexpectedly for IFR when they lost visibility and the Nice Controller took some time to figure out where to send them?

DX Wombat

21st Jun 2011, 08:36

Is there a bit of confusion here about flying according to IFR and flying in IMC? I was taught that it is perfectly legitimate to fly IFR without an IR or IMC rating providing I flew in VFR conditions, but that flying in IMC was forbidden without holding an appropriate qualification. Has this been changed?

Fuji Abound

21st Jun 2011, 09:17

Has this changed?

No, not really, it is just that the UK is different from most other places.

In the UK IFR is purely a state of the mind it says nothing about the papers you have. It is only when you are not longer in VMC that you need instrument papers in the UK.

Elsewhere, on the whole, IFR is all about the papers you have and nothing to do with the weather. So you can be in wall to wall VMC but if you declare IFR you need an instrument rating of some sort. To make matters worse if you are not in the "right" airspace then you cant be IFR even if it is wall to wall white.

That is the simple explanation.

I suppose if you were a pilot you would think to your self it is so daft you coudnt make it up if you tried, but then I guess the regulators believe they should also be able to control the clouds. I have not yet seen a cloud with an N on the side mind you - unless IO540 or Pace are coming out of it mind you. ;)

IO540

21st Jun 2011, 15:28

Penetration of IMC which is unauthorised in that particular airspace is virtually irrelevant to safety if the pilot is instrument capable and has sufficient resources to be aware of his obstacle clearance in all phases of flight.

Mid-airs in IMC are virtually unheard of, with the last UK one believed to have been during WW2.

It is terrain which is the real issue, and IFR GA operations in Europe have so many procedural holes in them (e.g. so many VFR-only airports, and IFR airports OCAS and without a radar service which might give you some protection based on the controller's MVA, where you have to hack your own procedures) that a pilot on an IFR flight plan really does need the full level of terrain awareness.

And most pilots haven't got that, even today.

421C

21st Jun 2011, 16:15

Fuji,

No, not really, it is just that the UK is different from most other places.

In the UK IFR is purely a state of the mind it says nothing about the papers you have. It is only when you are not longer in VMC that you need instrument papers in the UK.

Elsewhere, on the whole, IFR is all about the papers you have and nothing to do with the weather. So you can be in wall to wall VMC but if you declare IFR you need an instrument rating of some sort. To make matters worse if you are not in the "right" airspace then you cant be IFR even if it is wall to wall white.

That is the simple explanation
No, it's a bad explanation. Incorrect and confusing.

There are 3 relevant elements to the explanation. Weather conditions, flight rules and airspace.
1. All VFR has to be in VMC.
2. All IFR in controlled airspace needs an IFR clearance.
3. All flight in IMC needs to be under IFR.
4. In 2 and 3, the pilot needs an instrument qualification
Obviously, in VMC and outside controlled airspace, a pilot could be IFR, but it's a bit meaningless except for flight at night in the UK. There is no difference in IFR usage between the UK and the rest of the world, except for some variations in the extent of Class G (eg. very little in the US) and the German outlier that IFR is not permitted in Class G.

I suppose if you were a pilot you would think to your self it is so daft you coudnt make it up if you tried, but then I guess the regulators believe they should also be able to control the clouds. I have not yet seen a cloud with an N on the side mind you - unless IO540 or Pace are coming out of it mind you
The usage of VFR and IFR is simple and clear. The only daft thing is your explanation (forgive me). What would you propose as an alternative system to VFR and IFR?

IO,Penetration of IMC which is unauthorised in that particular airspace is virtually irrelevant to safety if the pilot is instrument capable and has sufficient resources to be aware of his obstacle clearance in all phases of flight. This is so wincingly embarrassing, I don't know what to say. What purpose can posting something like this serve?

mm_flynn

21st Jun 2011, 16:52

421,

A good clean summary. I think there are three more points around class G operations. And it is these points that make the UK 'different'.

most countries that allow IFR in Class G require either two way radio communications to be maintained and/or an IFR flight plan to have been filed. The UK requires neither.
most countries have limited their PPL licence privileges to VFR flight only (that is you can not operate IFR in VMC even in uncontrolled airspace - so in the US should fly at a level +500 feet but not at an even thousand), but the UK specifically allows a PPL to fly in accordance with IFR
finally, the UK has a set of restrictions and opportunities that means a PPL in class G can not fly in some VMC (when above an undercast or when vis is betwwen 1.5 KM and 3KM amongst others) but can fly in some IMC conditions (e.g. Where VMC cloud separation can not be maintained)

bookworm

21st Jun 2011, 19:13

3. All flight in IMC needs to be under IFR.
4. In 2 and 3, the pilot needs an instrument qualification

Bzzzzzzzzzzt! :)

Contacttower

21st Jun 2011, 21:37

421 sums it up nicely I think. The only thing I'd add is that in the UK technically in order to be IFR compliant in G one has to be flying correct level for magnetic track and be 1000ft above obstacles 5nm either side of track except when below 3000ft and in sight of the surface...I believe.:)

Fuji Abound

21st Jun 2011, 22:52

421c yours is the rather boring often trotted out and terribly pc explanation, if you like it and it works for you that is fine by me.

After all the times i have read it here and elsewhere it bores me to tears - sorry and all that.

Now the poster was obviously far more interested in understanding the differences between the uk and elsewhere, and our understanding is different.

What would i change. Well personally i am quite happy with ifr ocas either in vmc or imc. I think in the uk we have it about right. If someone wants to fly from manston to newquay entirely ocas in imc thats fine by me. Try that route in france ocas under ifr in imc and you may find your explanation falters.

Oh and you may feel my explanation is confusing and you are entitled to your opinion but my explanation was not incorrect and it was a different slant on an old chestnut, sorry if it confused you though.

IO540

22nd Jun 2011, 08:37

Political correctness has no place in discussing accidents.

One can understand PC if coming from somebody who is regularly involved in meeting regulatory body representatives, and we all know they do read the pilot forums, and I know for a fact that for the most part they know exactly who is who on here.

Such representative work is necessary and is valuable to GA, somebody has to do it, and those that do it are invariably not paid for it. But I don't do anything like that; I am a lone operator with my own views which I stand by otherwise I would not write them. If somebody wants to wince (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wincingly) (I had to look it up) they are welcome to it. This is one reason I don't get involved in any GA organisations.

I am perfectly happy flying in IMC, on my own, non-radio. The technology to avoid terrain has been around for quite a while, is dirt cheap, and if somebody chooses to not use it, it's their choice. I just feel sorry for the passengers (often children) who die, having trusted the pilot to do all the due diligence. It is a pretty common theme in fatal accidents; I always try to "take home" something from a mistake somebody else has made while wiping out most of his family, but in most cases it is hard to dig out something obviously worthwhile. Which is not to say I won't one day get killed flying, but the cause will probably be something different from the usual stuff.

421C

22nd Jun 2011, 10:06

I agree with everything in your post above. The thing I disagreed with is
"Penetration of IMC which is unauthorised in that particular airspace is virtually irrelevant to safety if the pilot is instrument capable and has sufficient resources to be aware of his obstacle clearance in all phases of flight."
I am still going to disagree with it. It doesn't help to personalise my context or motive or call it 'political correctness'. It's a statement I think is silly, for all the obvious reasons. You have your views, I have mine. I am not going to ascribe motives to your views, please don't to mine. Or is it that someone with different views must have an "agenda"?

Political correctness has no place in discussing accidents.
I find it odd, almost extraordinary, that a "conforming" view of IFR should be labelled "political correctness". The very reason I raise the subject is because this is an accident thread. I find the endless smilies and nudge-nudge wink-wink references to "VFR" etc etc on any thread related to IFR pretty depressing. A dominant theme in the CFIT and IFR accidents I read is "ad hoc" or "non-conforming" flight in IMC. People don't have accidents very often departing on a SID, flying an airway, arriving on a STAR and landing off an approach within minima. "Conforming" IFR works. Of course, sometimes one needs to use off-route IFR. But I still think trying to conform as best one can is better advice than doing non-conforming IFR "properly", whatever that is.

One thing we are in agreement over is terrain awareness/alerting equipment. It's impossible to know for sure, but I think the great majority of GA CFITs happen to aircraft without terrain awareness/alerting. Of course, a few years ago, this would have been a bit meaningless, since so few light aircraft had the kit. Today, I have to think a significant % of piston aircraft used for IFR have some form of terrain alerting - and I am not sure I've ever read a CFIT report involving such an aircraft. I guess the need for TAWS is a bit non-intuitive, because you can spend 99% of your time in IMC thousands of feet above any terrain within 50nm, let alone 1000'/5nm, when flying in the south of England or northern Europe. But the holes in the cheese line up often enough for (?) one or two pilots every year that the investment has to be worthwhile. Of course, the technology is not idiot proof and there is the risk that someone uses it to take chances they wouldn't take without TAWS, but in the CFIT reports I've read in the last few years, you have to think even a simple portable with graphic terrain alerting would have had a >50%(?) chance of averting the accident.

Fuji Abound

22nd Jun 2011, 11:19

IO540

22nd Jun 2011, 11:40

Of course, sometimes one needs to use off-route IFR.Quite... and that's where most GA people hit things.

But I still think trying to conform as best one can is better advice than doing non-conforming IFR "properly", whatever that is."Conform as best" how, and to what?

Obviously if you make sure everybody remains VMC and with >10k vis, nobody is ever going to do a CFIT. But that's not how the world works, OCAS.

Why is it safe for me to fly in IMC for 50nm in the UK while waiting for London Info to get me onto London Control for the IFR clearance to climb into CAS (and hopefully to VMC on top), when it is not safe for me to do the equivalent thing in say Germany, where IFR in Class G is apparently illegal?

If I ever meet a German IR holder who says he has never flown in IMC in German Class G, I am going to fall over. If this ban on IFR in Class G was observed strictly, operations from non-IFR airports would grind to a halt, because you would more or less need CAVOK conditions. It's a joke.

421C

22nd Jun 2011, 11:48

421C - I also find your attitude to IMC odd, and my comment is personalised only because I am commenting on the view you express.

You seem to rely far too much on the ground base infra structure in order to conduct a flight in IMC for my liking.
Sorry Fuji, I should have made it clear that my reply above was to IO540. I take nothing personal in our exchange. I stand by my comments on your post. I guess we find each others' views odd. Happy to leave it at that.

mm_flynn

22nd Jun 2011, 12:21

The thread has moved a long way from a useful 'accident learning' thread, which is disappointing. Of all the weather related accidents we have discussed, this is one where I can see the holes in the cheese lining up for myself, and quite a number of IFR rated pilots.

A potential scenario could be

A current IFR Rated pilot in a well equipped aircraft
Probably on the VFR part of a Z plan
Flying in increasingly marginal VMC (clear of clouds, visual with the sea below in haze)
Routing on a low level VFR transit route while waiting for his IFR clearance to climb into the TMA
probably 900 ft above the terrain (max level on the route is 1000 AGL) into the sun with an effective horizontal vis of say 1.5 miles (legal VMC)
Now viz drops to slightly less than VMC and we have the accidental move from VFR/VMC into VFR/IMC the linked paper describes as a key element of recent CFIT accidents)
This leaves say 20 seconds from the time the terrain comes out of the murk until impact.

The scenario then is - A pilot who thinks he knows where he is on a VFR route and that he has adequate visibility until too late. The essential point of the linked paper, and so many other analysis, is the decision to shift to IFR needs to be done in good time so the process is VMC/VFR -> VMC/IFR - >IMC/IFR with no room to be in the 'VFR'/IMC box.

I can easily imagine the dilemma facing a pilot in contact with ATC told to standby for his climb in increasing marginal VMC (but still OK, I think?). Do you decide to wait another minute or declare an emergency and climb, or declare and emergency and turn off the VFR route to the sea, through the approach/departure path of a busy international airport.

For me this is the most interesting aspect, how do we quickly make these decisions (correctly) and what can we do to help reduce the probability of needing to make these decisions. (TAWS has already been mentioned - and at its current cost, I would not fly IFR without)

what next

22nd Jun 2011, 12:28

If I ever meet a German IR holder who says he has never flown in IMC in German Class G, I am going to fall over. If this ban on IFR in Class G was observed strictly, operations from non-IFR airports would grind to a halt, because you would more or less need CAVOK conditions. It's a joke.

The magic word here (in Germany I mean) is _separation_. You are only allowed to fly on instruments alone, where separation can be provided. Either visually or by radar. In IMC this can obviously only be by radar and there is no (guaranteed) radar coverage in class G airspace. We have a very large number of aerodromes in Germany, just look how many pages there are in the "Aiport Directory" section of Jeppesen compared to other countries (which does not even list the countless glider and microlight sites) and at times a high traffic density at low level as well. Flying through this sort of airspace in and out of clouds is not a safe way of flying, therefore I perfectly understand our regulations.

Regarding your "...who says he has never flown in IMC in German Class G...", well yes, there are always people who stick to the rules and those who don't. Just like you will not find a driver who has never busted a speed limit. But as others have said, those who never flew in IMC at low level have never hit terrain or obstacles...

And regarding the need of CAVOK in order to operate IFR from uncontrolled airfields, this is simply not true. Within class G airspace, all you need 1.5km visibility and be able to stay clear of clouds. For the segment between the lower bounds of class E airspace and the minimum radar vectoring altitude from where the IFR flight starts, reduced minima apply that are identical to class G minima. Which means that from most uncontrolled airfields in Germany you can legally depart with a Z flightplan when you have 1500m visibilty, few in 500ft, scattered in 1500ft and broken in 3000ft. Which is completely different from CAVOK...

Happy landings,
max

bookworm

22nd Jun 2011, 12:33

I am perfectly happy flying in IMC, on my own, non-radio.

is a long way from

Penetration of IMC which is unauthorised in that particular airspace is virtually irrelevant to safety if the pilot is instrument capable and has sufficient resources to be aware of his obstacle clearance in all phases of flight.

It's one thing to point out, correctly, that the CFIT risk may be more significant than the mid-air collision risk during certain phases of flight, including a low-level transition from VFR to IFR. It's quite another to dismiss the mid-air collision risk entirely. Air Traffic Control, controlled airspace, and the requirement for clearances therein, are not "irrelevant to safety".

421C

22nd Jun 2011, 13:08

"Conform as best" how, and to what?

Obviously if you make sure everybody remains VMC and with >10k vis, nobody is ever going to do a CFIT. But that's not how the world works, OCAS.

It's not what I was saying. I was not saying never fly IFR OCAS. It's really simple, to the point that I wonder how we can be debating it. "Conforming" means conforming to VFR or IFR, and avoiding any middle-ground grey-zone of deteriorating weather without having fully established IFR. OCAS, you have to work harder on 'fully establishing' IFR because you are often not on a published route and often without radar service, and your navigation and altimetry discipline needs to be more alert and cautious.

If, in the "real world", this means the inconvenience of not departing, diverting, holding, 180-ing back into VMC, whatever then so be it. It is one thing to be annoyed about the "system". I find it as annoying as you do that the availability of GA airports with instrument procedures and low-level routes suitable for light aircraft is as poor as it is in Europe. But if the 'work arounds' take you into a grey zone of quasi VFR-into-IMC then CFIT accidents are the result.

Why is it safe for me to fly in IMC for 50nm in the UK while waiting for London Info to get me onto London Control for the IFR clearance to climb into CAS (and hopefully to VMC on top), when it is not safe for me to do the equivalent thing in say Germany, where IFR in Class G is apparently illegal?

If I ever meet a German IR holder who says he has never flown in IMC in German Class G, I am going to fall over. If this ban on IFR in Class G was observed strictly, operations from non-IFR airports would grind to a halt, because you would more or less need CAVOK conditions. It's a joke.
These are arguments about points I haven't made, so I am not sure what to reply. Ultimately, IFR and VFR are rules. They are not invariant across countries. My point is that the best way to avoid the general cause of the kind of accident we are discussing in this thread (obviously I don't know the specific cause) is to conform to the VFR or IFR rules of the airspace you're in and to avoid the temptation to fly VFR-in-quotation-marks or whatever.

IO540

22nd Jun 2011, 13:32

The thread has moved a long way from a useful 'accident learning' thread, which is disappointingIt's a bit frustrating as there are clearly people reading this and the "other" forum who heard the radio exchanges, but who are now saying nothing.

Until certain things are clarified, we cannot even be sure the pilot was asking for an IFR clearance. All we have is this one-liner

forward vis was 0 due to the mist. Jimaskedto climb and change airways joining point and was asked to stand by.

He may have been on a 100% VFR flight. Look at how many UK PPLs call the French Class E "airways". It is also possible this pilot did not have a JAA ME IR.

For me this is the most interesting aspect, how do we quickly make these decisions (correctly) and what can we do to help reduce the probability of needing to make these decisions. The issue I see is that if you are flying OCAS and without a radar vectoring service, you are on your own (legally and practically) when it comes to obstacle clearance, so the only "proper" answer is to always maintain VMC.

Yet we must agree this is not feasible, in a situation where, post-departure from a non-IFR airport, you need to collect an IFR clearance at some stage. Even if you could get one on the phone, that still doesn't solve the situation unless you are tracking a published SID (which you won't be doing in any non-IFR airport scenario).

So no means of clearance delivery is going to make the issue go away entirely.

I rarely if ever combine low level sightseeing with a Eurocontrol-filed IFR flight, so I work out (pre-departure) which way to fly and during this time I will be working furiously to collect the IFR clearance. I have not yet had a situation where was in IMC among significant terrain (the southern UK doesn't exactly count) while waiting for the clearance, but I can imagine a departure from Locarno (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/arrivals-deps.jpg) into say OVC020, without a topo moving map, would be interesting... I probably wouldn't do such a flight because of the possibility of losing GPS reception in between the ~ 9000ft mountains.

For a coastal airport, such as in this accident, a climb over the sea has to be the safe way (or perhaps just flying around at 900ft, on autopilot, until you get the IFR clearance) but for some reason it was not done - presumably because the pilot was not aware of the terrain and/or did not have a GPS moving map showing him where he was.

An apparently last-minute (relative to how long ATC might be reasonably expected to take to come up with it) decision to ask for an IFR clearance may be be a common thread in CFITs, but I don't know what one can do about that, short of binning the sightseeing option totally and going straight for a max-performance climb on a carefully preplanned track (which is what I do).

I say this because the time to get the IFR clearance can vary massively. I don't recall if I posted about a case in Greece but I flew a very long distance there before I got it, apparently due to sleepy controllers, and the terrain below was hills to ~ 5000ft so quite significant. Vis was very poor. And even then it was apparent that they had never found my flight plan, and the terminology used did not make it clear they had me on radar..... In N Europe I've had the clearance in anything from an immediate returned radio call (Lille Radar IIRC) to half an hour (London Info / London Control) to absolutely never (e.g. flying N to S across the UK and trying to get a route above a load of cumulus, say FL100+, with any entry into Class A being deliberately frustrated by Manchester Control asking for airways joining points in a manner ensuring that none of my choices would meet their requirements).

And we all know of cases where arriving GA traffic gets dumped by London Control 50-100nm before the destination, forcing it to hack under the LTMA at 2400ft etc. This is really no different to a pilot doing the same distance at the start of the flight, in solid IMC. The reason the "system" gets away with it is because southern UK is mostly pretty flat. and somebody happy to fly IMC at 2400ft without any service is going to be fine.

So I think there is no great solution, apart from a GPS which shows you where you are on a terrain-depicting map.

But it may be relevant to mention that all of the recently discussed "big" accidents here involved flights which were a mixture of extensive low level flying (probably for sightseeing) and IFR.

Very few GA CFITs seem to happen on straight IFR flights. I recall reading about a TB20 crash some years ago where the pilot turned left instead of right, on a SID, into terrain, but this is very rare.

Flying through this sort of airspace in and out of clouds is not a safe way of flying, therefore I perfectly understand our regulations.Is that supported by mid-air statistics? I don't think so. Emotionally it is very powerful but the numbers never prop it up.

those who never flew in IMC at low level have never hit terrain or obstacles...and neither have those who never flew :)

Actually there have been lots of CFITs in "legal VMC" too, in poor vis.

Which means that from most uncontrolled airfields in Germany you can legally depart with a Z flightplan when you have 1500m visibilty, few in 500ft, scattered in 1500ft and broken in 3000ft. Which is completely different from CAVOK...OK, but that presumably assumes that you avoid all the FEW bits and avoid all the SCT bits and avoid all the BKN bits, if there is terrain above 3000ft, else you have to just sit there orbiting. Germany has plenty of bits > 3000ft.

It's one thing to point out, correctly, that the CFIT risk may be more significant than the mid-air collision risk during certain phases of flight, including a low-level transition from VFR to IFR. It's quite another to dismiss the mid-air collision risk entirely.I recall you having very extensively posted on this topic, saying that mid-airs are so rare.

And they are. Terrain is orders of magnitude more dangerous than other traffic. It's a lot bigger, there is a lot more of it, and it hangs around in the same spot for a long time :)

By far the biggest reason we have any mid-air stats at all is because the way aviation works, a lot of traffic is concentrated into small areas.

bookworm

22nd Jun 2011, 18:07

I recall you having very extensively posted on this topic, saying that mid-airs are so rare.

And they are. Terrain is orders of magnitude more dangerous than other traffic. It's a lot bigger, there is a lot more of it, and it hangs around in the same spot for a long time

By far the biggest reason we have any mid-air stats at all is because the way aviation works, a lot of traffic is concentrated into small areas.

I have indeed suggested that the risk of random collision in IMC in low traffic density airspace is smaller than is often assumed. I don't remember suggesting that "unauthorised" penetration of IMC in the Nice TMA falls into the same category. In higher density airspace, ATM is indeed necessary to bring the collision risks down to an acceptable level. Part of ATM is IFR flights in controlled airspace obtaining and conforming to a clearance.

IO540

22nd Jun 2011, 18:26

I don't think I ever suggested that one should bust CAS while awaiting an IFR clearance. That would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

Somebody on Flyer suggested that.

Fuji Abound

22nd Jun 2011, 18:54

Conforming" means conforming to VFR or IFR, and avoiding any middle-ground grey-zone of deteriorating weather without having fully established IFR. OCAS, you have to work harder on 'fully establishing' IFR because you are often not on a published route and often without radar service, and your navigation and altimetry discipline needs to be more alert and cautious.

What do you mean by conforming?

If you are flying a route in an out of cloud ocas how are you going to conform?

what next

22nd Jun 2011, 19:02

I don't think I ever suggested that one should bust CAS while awaiting an IFR clearance. That would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

Statistically speaking, you should be quite safe doing that. In CAS, all traffic is separated both horizontally and vertically by wide margins of safety, so passing randomly through it is like a neutrino fling through a crystal lattice... the chances of hitting something are very low. Not so in uncontrolled airspace where all traffic is squeezed into a thin layer of airspace, sometimes only 1000ft thick and pilots tend to route (for whatever reason?) via neuralgic points like VORS and reporting points instead of taking the straight line from A to B. Yet you are right, not many (if any) collisions have happened between instrument traffic in uncontrolled airspace.

IO540

22nd Jun 2011, 19:11

It might be safe but it is very very poor form. In the UK, we have not yet had a GA/jet mid-air, which is pretty amazing considering how many people bust CAS and how many fly below CAS without Mode C, when ATC has to assume that a non-C target "must be" below CAS.

The worst thing would be if the GA aircraft was N-reg :)

I was thinking about your "few in 500ft, scattered in 1500ft and broken in 3000ft" departure case. There, you might end up circling around, between layers, doing your best to avoid popping into cloud, while waiting for the IFR clearance. It just doesn't seem very practical to me. I bet a German pilot is just going to fly off straight into IMC (assuming non-hazardous conditions of course) on approximately his filed route, which is exactly what people do here in the UK and legally so. But you level off below the base of CAS, in all cases.

what next

22nd Jun 2011, 19:42

I was thinking about your "few in 500ft, scattered in 1500ft and broken in 3000ft" departure case. There, you might end up circling around, between layers, doing your best to avoid popping into cloud, while waiting for the IFR clearance.

There is no need to wait for your clearance (in Germany again)! When departing from a VFR only field with an IFR flightplan (Z plan) the radio operator of the field will get your clearance by phone once you tell him you are ready for start-up. And when the radar sector overhead can accept you, they phone the airfield and tell them to release you. When airborne ATC already expect you and all you have to do is climb to MRVA as quick as you can. Personally, I fly around every single cloud in this phase because I owe it to the people (up to 10) that I carry on board to do everything possible for their safety.
Mind you, there are over 20,000 gliders in Germany and on some busy summer weekends 80 percent of them can be airborne at the same time. Anywhere between ground level and 10.000ft. Below clouds, beside clouds, above clouds. See and be seen is vital.

It just doesn't seem very practical to me. I bet a German pilot is just going to fly off straight into IMC (assuming non-hazardous conditions of course) on approximately his filed route, which is exactly what people do here in the UK and legally so. But you level off below the base of CAS, in all cases.

As I wrote above, it's rather the contrary here. You aim straight for CAS (because that's where big brother will be watching over you) without leveling off anywhere - but on the way there, you try to be seen as much as possible and avoid clouds like the devil avoids holy water...

But you are right again when other countries are concerned, especially in France and the UK it can take ages until you get your clearance. My record is a flight departing Stapleford where finally a mercyful belgian controller gave us our clearance well inland from Oostend. We had to do the whole channel crossing at 1.000ft in IMC - unthinkable here!

Fuji Abound

22nd Jun 2011, 21:57

Clearly it is just me but I find this thread bizarre.

Firstly I cant imagine why anyone would intentionally bust CAS without a clearance. The rules are clear and while the risk of a collision is minimal that is irrelevant.

As far as a departure OCAS is concerned I find it bizarre that any standard procedure would be adopted. Surely it is a matter of considering all the circumstances on the day. These circumstances will include a thorough review of the topography, of course the weather, and local traffic. There are circumstances when it would show poor planning to depart from a preconceived plan, although that plan might include an alternative and there are circumstances were there is greater freedom to make it up as you go along. There are circumstances in which the last thing I would have any interest in doing is dodging IMC to remain barely in VMC when the priority should be to follow the preconceived profile.

I have been in the hold in an out of cloud to find on glancing up another aircraft heading directly for me. In reality you are just fooling yourself if you really believe you have any chance of dodging other aircraft in these circumstances; the priority should be to get out of the low level danger zone as quickly an efficiently as possible.

Flying IMC OCAS is clearly not without risk in terms of a collision but for all the rehearsed reasons the risk is almost non existent. Hopefully most of us avoid overflying airfields in IMC in a away that could cause a conflict with departing traffic which is another reason for followng a departure profile that avoids scudding along well beyond the airfield periphery.

Irrationally I fear the risk of a mid air, so I have TCAS. I know it is not full proof but it provides another layer of security.

I completely fail to see the rational for avoiding IMC OCAS or departing only where a SID is available. There is absolutely no reason this cannot be done safely; moreover I would question the ability of the pilot if he is unable to carry out an adequate pre flight brief to enable him to do so. Whilst I cant imagine ideally why anyone would choose to bump around in the clouds equally if the weather has been properly assessed when needs be I see no reason not to do so.

Where a departure "requires" a climb which may be in IMC but an IFR clearance has not be given (OCAS) I think the pilot should use his discretion. By far and away the biggest danger is to follow the impression given to me by this thread - viz the pilot generally wanders off avoiding cloud in the hope that he can gradually climb in VMC until above the layer. I can think of nothing more dangerous. One of a number of things will happen. The pilot will wander off in an unintended direction and / or he will bump along low level with very little chance of avoiding other traffic. So the departure is planned to maintain VMC if this is what the regulations require but if it proves difficult to continue VMC and there is a clear an apparent danger of departing from the preplanned profile then fly the profile and get out of the danger zone as quickly as possible following a route you know is safe.

That is the way I see it. It doesnt bother me departing OCAS into IMC and I couldnt careless whether there is a SID but I care very much about knowing the weather into which I will depart, what departure profile I will follow and at what point I will say to myself "sod it" now is the time to get out of the danger zone. The only risk I cant totally manage is the risk of a collision, that I have to accept, but a combination of TCAS, finding out about possible local gliding and other aerial activity, and on the whole climbing as quickly as possible seems to have worked well.

In terms of en route OCAS I avoid navigation intersections, always take a service if I can get one, and obvioulsy do my best to stay out of IMC, but it doesnt bother me if I cant. I am pretty cautious about the weather in these circumstances because I can afford to be.

mm_flynn

23rd Jun 2011, 06:24

Fuji,

There are a couple if issues getting mixed together.

What Next is simply pointing out the Germany has very different laws than the UK and hence a different operational approach (Get your release on the ground and then go straight into CAS through a hole.
IO and others are questioning if German's really don't go if there isn't a viable hole (i.e. CAS at FL040 and OVC038 do Z flights OCAS really not depart)
IO's 'airspace bust' comment was in the context of 'in some countries even if you have an IR you can't be IFR in some airspace' - ie German Class G, not 'you should feel free to fly through the Nice TMA without a clearance'
.

Finally, what is so hard about understanding 'Conforming with IFR of VFR'?

If you are VFR then you must be in VMC

If you are IFR then you comply with the Instrument Flight Rules

To be fair the IFR's in the UK are pretty trivial - and applying UK rules to an area like Nice can, on the edges, be deadly - you are technically 'conforming' to the minimum altitude component at 200 knots, 500 feet above the ground (as long as that is below 3000 feet, in a visibility of at least 800 m and you can see the ground underneath you) on the shoulder of a 6000 foot mountain! This is a concept that can really only make sense in a pretty flat country.

Most states don't have this low level exception and as, you know, broadly IFR is above MSA or on a published route at an IFR level and generally in receipt of some procedural or active assistance in maintaining separation. Also, in most states other than the UK IFR requires two way comms and/or on an IFR plan, with IFR reserves.

C421s point, I believe, is simply you either are on instruments or you are not. When people do a bit of both they have a substantially increased risk of LOC or CFIT - I can't see what is hard to understand.

IO540

23rd Jun 2011, 07:28

On a purely practical note, would somebody flying at 900ft above the sea, in that area, be able to pick up an IFR clearance from Nice?

IOW, will they have you on radar to start with?

I am just wondering what odd factor might have caused the pilot to carry on, into the terrain. Might he have picked up a clearance to climb on some heading, intended for another aircraft?

what next - interesting facilities you have there in Germany. Nothing like that here, or anywhere else in Europe AFAIK.

Fuji Abound

23rd Jun 2011, 07:51

Mmflynn

I entirely aceept your points about conformity but i wasnt certain this is precisely what 421c was suggesting. In the example given during the climb out into broken clouds the pilot is attempting to maintain vmc because he is worried about traffic seperation and the rules forbidding ifr. At some point the transition must be made. It is how, when and why that transition is made not the more simple point of which rules you are conforming with.

2Donkeys

23rd Jun 2011, 08:13

I am just wondering what odd factor might have caused the pilot to carry on, into the terrain. Might he have picked up a clearance to climb on some heading, intended for another aircraft?

I have no knowledge of the specifics of the incident, but I have a lot of experience flying around the area in which the accident occurred.

That locale has been the scene of a number of accidents and more than a few twitchy moments and the cause tends to be the same and invariably relates to aircraft inbound to airfields in France from Italy. Most particularly, French airfields north of (say) Lyon, where tracking along the south coast before turning north represents something of a dogleg.

As aircraft under VFR approach France from the East, tracking along the coast, they are faced with a choice as they approach the Nice TMA. Practically, the TMA is sufficiently busy that an ad hoc climb and transit on a routing of your choice will not be permitted. Instead, you have the choice of a very low level transit out to sea to the South of Nice airport, unable to turn northbound until approaching Cannes, or you can cut the corner and creep under the Nice TMA on a roughly North-Westerly track, in the general direction of Digne (DGN) and ultimately the Rhone Valley. The TMA for the most part comes down to 1000 above terrain and on a nice day with low winds and no low clouds, the route is picturesque and easy to navigate.

The issue is that on a more cloudy day, it is exceptionally difficult to judge from the coast, whether there is sufficient gap between the clouds and the terrain to slot through. Once you have gone far enough inland to discover any misjudgement, it can be very hard safely to dig yourself out (either by making a 180 or requesting an IFR clearance).

To be clear, I have no particular knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this particular accident, but if one were to hazard a guess, the circumstances I describe have claimed more than one previous aircraft and its occupants in that location.

421C

23rd Jun 2011, 09:35

Fuji,

Sorry, looking back on my posts, I can see that my use of "conforming" is unclear.

I didn't mean anything by 'conforming' except the banal and simple thing of sticking to the letter and spirit of the flight rules that apply in whatever airspace and country you are in. I used it to counter a point from IO that I was being 'politically correct'. I was absolutely not suggesting that IFR OCAS, where permitted, is wrong. I do it myself all the time. It is both useful and enjoyable in the great flexibility it gives us in the UK. My point about IFR OCAS is that it can be harder because there are fewer safety nets (like published, surveyed routes, radar, ATC). I totally agree with you that any instrument qualified pilot should be able to safely plan an IFR OCAS flight. That's not the situation I think is a particularly high risk one.

What I do think is potentially high-risk is "ad hoc" IFR OCAS in an environment with terrain - where the pilot hasn't planned an IFR route. That is where my point about conforming is directed- the idea that you should, firstly, conform to VMC (true VMC, that assures you of visual terrain seperation and reasonable confidence that you can maintain that in the direction you are heading, ie. not VFR-in-quotation-marks or even 'continue whilst you can see the ground', because it's too late once VMC is degraded). Secondly, that if you want to transition to IFR, you should establish your navigation and safe level and plan in accordance with prudent IFR practice prior to exiting "true" VMC.

I know it's obvious, but the boundaries between VMC and IMC, and VFR into IMC versus 'conforming' IFR, are easy ones to misjudge in flight. It doesn't matter a lot of the time OCAS. It does when terrain is around, and that's when the pilot of the Seneca out of Shoreham and his family got killed in the French mountains a few years ago, and it's perhaps a factor in this recent tragedy.

421C

23rd Jun 2011, 10:01

2 Donkeys,

Thank you for what I found the most useful post on this thread. I've transited the area IFR around there, but I've never done a VFR transit which didn't involve a stop at one of the airports in the area. Either of those scenarios are fine. I can absolutely see how a VFR transit in the inland area below the Nice Class D at 1000AGL is a very much a potential trap.

The irony is that whilst IFR is legal in Class G in France, it's impossible in this Class G.

Majorca has a similar 1000AGL trap that caught a Piper Meridian in 2002: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/P46T,_vicinity_Son_Bonet_Palma_de_Mallorca_Spain,_2002_(HF_A I_CFIT)

The CAS base is legally and literally 1000' above any point of terrain. A light aircraft's climb gradient is much shallower than the terrain gradient. Obviously, you need to go well below 1000AGL at some point to avoid a vertical airspace bust, because you can't climb as fast as the terrain can. In Majorca, if you dodge about a bit, I think it's ok. I've never done this in anything other than lovely CAVOK. I can see the nightmare it could be in many technically VMC scenarios, just as you describe in the Nice area.

IO540

23rd Jun 2011, 10:06

What I do think is potentially high-risk is "ad hoc" IFR OCAS in an environment with terrain - where the pilot hasn't planned an IFR routeBut you can't plan an IFR route in a situation where you can't fly on without an eventual clearance i.e. no good planning an IFR route eventually leading into CAS, when the flight involves having to get an IFR clearance in order to continue the flight.

Such a flight is very hard to completely plan ahead. Out of say Goodwood, out of hours, going to say Prague, it's easy enough. You get airborne, fly to the east, FL054 max, and you will pick up the stuff from London Control when London Info get around to sorting it out. At worst, you might be halfway to Belgium by the time it happens.

But let's say something went wrong and you don't get it by KONAN. Then you are faced with a flight at < 1000ft across Belgium, and it could be awfully difficult for them to give you a climb, because of Brussels traffic. What do you do? Turn back, or continue at 999ft? What if it is IMC there? This could turn quite interesting, especially later on near LUX.

On a sim you press the STOP button... but in reality there are no clear cut solutions. You are on your own and you have to have the resources to get by.

That's what I was getting at when I said that continuous terrain awareness is a must, because you might well end up having to go off in some other direction. This often happens when waiting for an IFR clearance. Also, obviously, a continuous CAS awareness is a must otherwise you end up behaving like a complete pratt.

that's when the pilot of the Seneca out of Shoreham and his family got killed in the French mountains a few years agoI think he was

- trying to avoid carrying oxygen (thus wasting 2/3 of his operating ceiling)
- trying to avoid route charges (a pretty common thing)
- flew VFR across most of France mostly in IMC (awfully hard to find somebody to cast the first stone on that one)
- didn't have any meaningful terrain awareness (probably just had a GNS530 or similar which is next to useless for that)

I would not have done that flight because ultimately the embedded +TSRA (http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/20070210.jpg) and heavy icing conditions later on his route were "impossible" for that aircraft, but he didn't really check the weather before departure, and commented to a good friend of mine (who was the last person to see them alive, that morning) that "I always fly".

The CAS base is legally and literally 1000' above any point of terrain. A light aircraft's climb gradient is much shallower than the terrain gradient. Obviously, you need to go well below 1000AGL at some point to avoid a vertical airspace bust, because you can't climb as fast as the terrain canI've often wondered what exactly "1000ft AGL" really means when the "G" is a load of mountains with 45 degree slopes.

It is disingenuous (though widespread) to depict a CAS base in that way. All it means is that you could stand on one of the peaks and fly a model plane to 999ft AGL... One look at the map makes it obvious that the CAS base depiction is meaningless because there is no way one could fly a normal plane under the CAS.

It's patently obvious that the ATCO's MVA chart cannot be anywhere near as low as that, because he is free to vector traffic anywhere above the MVA surface.

In Majorca, if you dodge about a bit, I think it's okDodge what about a bit?

421C

23rd Jun 2011, 11:08

IO,

I don't think we are disagreeing on anything. I think we are simply emphasising different points.

When I said "What I do think is potentially high-risk is "ad hoc" IFR OCAS in an environment with terrain - where the pilot hasn't planned an IFR route" I was replying to Fuji's point "I completely fail to see the rational for avoiding IMC OCAS or departing only where a SID is available. There is absolutely no reason this cannot be done safely; moreover I would question the ability of the pilot if he is unable to carry out an adequate pre flight brief to enable him to do so. " that the scenario I was talking about wasn't one in which a pilot had planned and briefed an IFR OCAS departure and flight, but had encountered IFR enroute in a VFR flight.

You keep writing about examples of difficult scenarios, like your one above to Prague. I am not sure what point you are making? Yes, flying long trips can get you into incovenient or undesirable scenarios if you don't get the clearance you want. It's a fact. It's annoying. What does it change about VFR or IFR or safe courses of action? I guess you need to be doubly alert in these scenarios and maintain an even bigger margin of VMC or terrain safety than otherwise?

We've discussed the French Seneca before. I know you wouldn't have attempted the flight VFR. He did, and the French report stated (IIRC) it was not, in of itself, an unreasonable attempt. The reason he crashed was that he continued VFR into IMC. He could have done all the other things you refer to in this accident and not crash if he hadn't continued VFR into IMC. Similarly, he could have done none of them and he still would have crashed if he'd continued VFR into IMC in those mountains.

- flew VFR across most of France mostly in IMC (awfully hard to find somebody to cast the first stone on that one)
I have a comment on this sentence. I am not saying you have ever done this - you are one of the most careful and sensible pilots I know. I am not saying you condone it. You don't. I am not saying I am a saint. I am not. But you can't seem to write about France or IFR without mentioning the prevalence of the practice of illegally flying VFR in IMC in French airspace. I think, in of itself, the endless repetition of this point without explicit condemnation risks normalising and legitimising it to some degree. Things have a way of creeping in to the collective psyche. A newbie reading this forum might wrongly get the impression that whilst technically illegal, it was "ok" to an extent. To experienced pilots and forum regulars like yourself, it's probably so self-evidently wrong that it doesn't need stating. But, from time to time, it's worth stating the obvious. It's wrong. People crash into mountains. If they don't, they put IFR traffic at risk. And in the endless "risk-free" and "harmless" scenarios that could, no doubt, be thrown back at me, it still breaches the most fundamental principle of aviation safety - that good pilots obey rules (especially ones as basic as VFR and VMC) because the overall practice of conforming to all of them is safer than the practice of picking and choosing the ones you can break. As a foreign pilot in France, I also personally think this practice (if it takes place and to the extent it does) is insulting to a country, its ATC and its other airspace users, which have a great attitude to GA and offer a positive and welcoming experience to visiting or transiting aircraft.

Please note, I am not criticising you or anything you have written. Your comment just triggered the thought that when a bad practice is referred to regularly, somewhere in the balance of reference, it is worth making the bad bit explicit, and that is why I have written this. Forgive the annoying political correctness!

421C

23rd Jun 2011, 11:13

Dodge what about a bit?
IIRC, there's terrain along the NW coast of Majorca, from Andraitx to Pollensa. VFR departure back to the mainland usually has you crossing this coast. A direct track might take you across the steep bits. It's a while since I've done it, but, IIRC, you can route through gaps in the terrain to both conform to the 1000AGL rule and stay a reasonable height above the ground. As I said, ok if not particularly desirable in nice CAVOK. Potential nightmare otherwise.

Fuji Abound

23rd Jun 2011, 12:04

Sorry, looking back on my posts, I can see that my use of "conforming" is unclear.

421C - well I am genuinely really pleased to see we are in agreement, I was worried it was me, and we are very much in agreement.

I do think that potentially one of the most dangerous things we do is managing a departure in VMC / IMC OCAS which is why I "rabbited" on about the importance of having a plan and staying with it that was formulated on the ground and not "made up" as events unfold.

Does that plan work just as well for IOs scenario? In other words if you are "held" below awaiting a clearance do you not establish lateral limits beyond which you will not delay a further climb even if that means declaring a Pan. For me that would also include weather avoidance should that become necessary. In short are there times when the pilot needs to exert his command authority over ATC whether or not they like it?

bookworm

23rd Jun 2011, 12:30

The CAS base is legally and literally 1000' above any point of terrain.

Purely on a point of information, the base of the Nice TMA onshore in the area of interest is FL65 or 1000 ft agl whichever is higher. Offshore, it's 1500 ft altitude.

Fuji Abound

23rd Jun 2011, 13:08

and the weather going into or departing Nice can very often look like this surprisingly.

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz66/fujiflyer/IMG_1565-Copy.jpg

IO540

23rd Jun 2011, 21:34

Here (http://www.agi.it/genova/notizie/201106231804-cro-rt10225-aereo_precipitato_nel_savonese_salgono_a_tre_le_vittime) goes another one in the same area; a Cirrus, this morning.

Fuji Abound

23rd Jun 2011, 21:54

Savona is some way from nice mind you but indeed another sad tragedy in much the same area.

Contacttower

24th Jun 2011, 13:18

Another sad accident in which it looks like the weather may have been a factor.

Just going back to the IFR OCAS question; now that the German system has been explained better I can see the advantages of it. In the UK an A/G station won't issue a clearance which is annoying...although I was under the impression that they used to...was it once possible to get a provisional clearance from one?

IO540

24th Jun 2011, 16:01

In the UK, in general, the only ATC units which can give you a clearance to enter CAS are ones which are themselves in CAS, and even then only for a route which remains wholly in CAS afterwards.

However, in principle, anybody sitting up in an airfield tower should have access to the confidential phone number required to obtain a provisional clearance from say London Control.

Such a clearance is not really a clearance to go anywhere, but it is a set of instructions e.g. squawk, initial track, must remain OCAS (obviously), contact frequency.

There are some UK GA airfields (especially non ATC ones) who refuse to get involved in this, which is very bad, but there is little you can do about it, and in that case you get airborne and pick up the same provisional clearance from the local FIS unit e.g. London Information.

There are also UK GA airfields which would normally get you the provisional clearance, but they obviously can't if you are departing under some "out of hours concession" when there is nobody in the tower.

Having got this provisional "clearance" you then set the squawk and go. As soon as the radar controller's unit sees the squawk (probably about when you climb to 500-1000ft) it somehow connects it to your already-filed IFR flight plan, and your tail number pops up on the screens all along the filed route. The exact process varies around Europe but basically all the units know about you.

So when you make the initial call to London Control, they take just a few seconds to get back and have all your details.

The scenario where the airfield has not got you any departure "clearance" is the worst one, because you are facing a very variable delay waiting for London Info getting it. On nice days, LI is extremely busy with every TD&H calling it up with their inside leg measurement, as per goode olde PPL training :) In the meantime, you are climbing at +1000fpm to the base of CAS and then heading somewhere along your filed route at 150kt :) Obviously your terrain awareness and CAS awareness must be 100%.

If the airfield has got you the provisional clearance from London Control, you can call up LC immediately after takeoff, and there are no delays and you get an (usually) immediate climb into CAS; usually FL080 right away.

The only scenario where you might choose to not call up LC ASAP is where there is hazardous (TCU etc) wx around and then you want to climb as high as poss, non-radio, through a gap and position yourself suitably so that when LC give you a heading along your filed route, you don't fly straight into the muck.

S-Works

24th Jun 2011, 17:49

I think the problems with getting a join from London are a little exaggerated.

I have never had a problem getting a quick join even on a busy day.

I am in Guernsey at the moment and got my airways join within a couple of minutes as usual after departing from a private airfield with no services. I find the service from LI exceptional. As a rule I have very few problems getting airways joins when joining OCAS from private fields around Europe which in my line of work is frequent.

IO540

24th Jun 2011, 18:37

Excellent :ok:

What is "your line of work" these days?

Fuji Abound

24th Jun 2011, 19:47

Entertainment?

Barcli

25th Jun 2011, 07:51

Bosie arent you meant to be in Florida at the moment ?

AC-DC

25th Jun 2011, 20:55

IO540
Those that know talk with the AAIB.

IO540

25th Jun 2011, 21:08

Those that know talk with the AAIB.

Their efforts are likely to be wasted, given this will be investigated by the French BEA, who can barely be bothered to investigate GA crashes. The last report I know of took over 3 years to come out, and is a very superficial job.

vanHorck

26th Jun 2011, 06:23

IO,

I believe ACDC was intending this more as the usual reprimand: "how dare we discuss this here, us nitwits"

Whole lotta Rosie!

proudprivate

9th Aug 2011, 11:10

Sorry to revive this thread but I wanted to ask a question about the circumstances:

When you depart an airport in the Liguria area (like LIQL, but others spring to mind, like Cuneo (Captain Slow in Top Gear) and you want to go home (i.e. to the UK, Belgium or Holland), there seem to be very little practical opportunities to fly IFR low enroute, because of

- the Alps
- Nice Airport routing
- an Italian military training area.

I was trying to fly the Simplon route on a Yankee FPL, but when the weather is only mildly acting up, it is a complete no-no without oxygen and a reasonably performant aircraft.

For those interested, a fair weather routing at 10000 Ft could be
... SRN L153 ARLES VFR SRN315042 (Masera) DCT SRN315046 (Varzo) DCT SRN310051 DCT MOT090021 (Brigg) DCT LSTA DCT MOT DCT SIO DCT SIO238012 (Martigny) DCT LSGB DCT REVLI... where you can pick up the A41 and the A1 to DJL ...

[Disclaimer - check on a current map, do your own calcs and have approach plates of intermediate airports ready]

However, if the weather is mediocre or bad, you're condemned to flying a wide arc around the mainland, half way to Corsica, with nothing to sight-see and burning at least 60 minutes of extra avgas for nothing (more if the headwinds are strong).

Would you agree that the non-existence of low IFR routing in the direction of France (out of Italy) near the Ventimiglia border could have been an contributing factor to this accident, as it can urge pilots to take unnecessary risks ? Wouldn't it make more sense to provide a low route to USANO from the east and allow Y15 transit at, say 10000 Ft ?

Link to the French Low Airspace Map here (https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/fr/..%5CPDF_AIPparSSection%5CAIP%20FRANCE%5CENR%5C6%5C1109_ENR-6.1.pdf)

Of course, I'm fully aware this will not avoid hitting terrain if you are proceeding north-northwest in IMC at 8000 ft; Rather, it is the additional circumstances created by specific Nice and Italy MIL procedures I'm referring to.