Declaring an emergency

[dublinpilot]

Ok, another question I've wondered about for a while!

Reading the accident reports in Flyer and Today's Pilot, and reading on the web, I've often noticed accidents which seem to have been avoidable, or at least given the pilot a better chance, if they had of asked for help earlier. Instead they often seem to leave asking for help, and God forbid, declaring an emergency, until the last possible moment.

I've been wondering is this due to some form of investigation or paperwork that goes on afterwards?

Lets look at the following situations.

1. No failure of the pilot or aircraft. eg. an unforcast deteriation of weather. Or a runway blocking incident at both the destination and the alternative aerodrome, leaving just enough fuel to make another aerdrome. However plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage

2. There was poor planning on behalf of the pilot. eg. took off without proper checking of weater forecast, and there was a deteriation below vfr, or poor fuel planning. However plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.

3. There is a mechanical problem, but not a catastrophic problem. eg. rough running engine, or some damage to a control surface. However the plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.

4. The is a major problem, such as a total engine failure. However the plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.

5. An inflight emergency of some kind happened, and was declared. The plane lands, but there is some sort of jury/damage.

In all of these situations I'm assuming the pilot does declare an emergency. Given that, then what paper work or investigation arises from declaring that emergency?

Thanks for any info. Always looking to expand my knowledge!

Regards,
dp


Edited to make the question more obvious! ;)

Edited to clarify case 5

[Dude~]

Er, whats the question please?

[david viewing]

Dublinpilot

I asked a similar question here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97672&perpage=15&highlight=concorde%20mayday&pagenumber=2) recently which elucidated the reponse that there is no such thing as a 'fuel emergency' in the UK, just Pan or Mayday.

As to the paperwork, MOR's were mentioned but no-one commented from a specifically GA point of view, so it would be interesting to know what happens in reality.

I am sure that many (most?) GA pilots would be reluctant to call Mayday out of fear of possible consequences, so perhaps a better knowledge of what follows such a call would help pilots make the decision earlier.

[PhilD]

I am sure that many (most?) GA pilots would be reluctant to call Mayday out of fear of possible consequences

I'd like to think I would be much more worried about the consequences of not calling a Mayday

[gasax]

This should turn into a good one!

Essentially the 'system' is highly dependent on either people 'fessing up' or offical bodies reporting.


So for 1,2 and 3 unless the pilot reports it - no action.

If the pilot reports 4 (which the rules state he should), nice letter from CAA - if anything.

If the pilot, or someone else reports 5, a less polite letter from the CAA. Having being involved directly in one (my heavy landing) and indirectly in two others I have to say they were sensible and moderate.

None warranted enforcement action (there was no direct rule breach in any of them), and none was taken. In many ways my direct experience of the system would suggest it works well. But then the situations you are talking about are all 'accidents' or 'near misses'. If you include nearly running out of fuel then recent CAA policy has been to prosecute. So 'fessing up' to that one might be inadvisable, ditto flying under bridges to avoid birds and breaching Special Branch requirements and any of a host of others.

Given the possibility of self incrimination for some of these things there is a pretty natural tendency to keep quiet. Perhaps the question is "can you think of a situation where asking for help early actually helps"

For being lost - probably the obvious one. For anything else - I'm really not sure. I've had a couple of incidents - heavy landing - only knew about it when it happened. 3 cylinders firing after a failure - no help just gave me something else to think about and respond to whilst I nursed the aircraft to the nearest runway. Loss of power in the climbout - no help the aircraft had to be flown back into a difficult strip, that I managed - much more might have been too much.

The one I know of where it could have helped, was where someone lost their nosewheel at my strip, managed to go around and then had to land back somewhere on a hard runway. They spent 30 minutes arguing with two airfields before they got permission from one to land there!!!!! They would probably been better off flying direct to the nearest and then yelling for the fire truck.

[FlyingForFun]

A couple of points here.

First of all, there is no investigation or paperwork following an emergency. There is paperwork following an accident - but the paperwork will be the same whether you declare an emergency or not. Unless you avoid the accident by asking for help, of course, in which case the paperwork requirement goes away!

In your 5 scenarios, case 5 is, IMHO, different to the others. I'm assuming that what you mean is that there was nothing wrong, except that the pilot c0cked up the landing and there was some damage? Not much point declaring an emergency in this case - the damage is already done before you've had a chance!

As for the others, if you're short of fuel, or short of options, or there's a mechanical problem, then it's either Mayday or Pan Pan, depending how urgent the problem is. Simple.

I'm interested that in two of your options you mention weather problems. Weather problems don't automatically create an emergency situation.

Example: you take off and fly towards a cold front. You hope to reach your destination before you reach the start of the frontal weather. About 20 miles from your destination, you encounter heavy rain, and turn around. Is this an emergency? No - IMHO, if the weather behind you is clear, and you have plenty of fuel left, then you have plenty of options, so no need to bother anyone else. Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't tell anyone - I'd tell anyone I was talking to. If I was receiving a LARS or FIS, I'd tell the controller I was diverting. On contacting my diversion field, I'd tell them I'm a (for example) "PA28, from A to B, diverting to you due weather". This at least explains why you're changing course, why you haven't phoned for PPR, why you maybe don't have the airfield diagram to hand - but there's no need for special priority, no need for a fire truck to meet you, and no need to declare an emergency.

Example 2: you take off and stay below the overcast layer of clouds. You cross a range of hills, and then encounter bad weather ahead. You turn around, only to find that the clouds bases have lowered, and you can't get back across the range of hills that you passed earlier. This quite possibly is an emergency. Right now, I want all the help I can get. I want to know if there's a farm-strip that's not shown on my chart, or if another pilot has just reported a gap in the clouds a few miles away. If I'm running low on fuel or if the clouds are getting lower, then I will have to land somewhere very soon, even if it's off airport. With the cloud-base lowering, the chances are I'm not going to want to hang around extending downwind in a 1000' circuit while some twin is 4 miles out on the ILS - I want to be on the ground, and I want to be on the ground asap.

At least that's my personal interpretation - don't know if everyone else will agree!

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

[IO540]

FlyingForFun

I don't have the experience of actual cases to add to this thread, but your Example #2 is a pretty serious example of how careful a PPL-only pilot has to be with the TAFs. No flying if the forecast cloudbase is anywhere near the MSA. In that situation I would call 121.5 immediately I established there is no suitable airfield close.

Of course, getting the IMCR/IR and keeping current is the proper way to do this :O But even then one cannot fly a non-deiced plane if the freezing level is at/below the MSA unless the clouds are scattered or better...

You could come up with lots of scenarios like this which a pilot could get into, and which aren't clear cut. It would not suprise me if the content of a TAF discovered on the PIC's corpse affected an insurer's view of matters, for example...

[dublinpilot]

Thanks guys for the replies!

The examples I gave were only to show the type of emergency I was thinking of. In my case 1, I was just showing how an emergency could occur, without either the pilot being at fault or something happening to the airplane. And in case 2, I was giving an example of how the pilot could be at fault.

FFF-I agree that weather problems doen't always equal an emergency! But thanks for your reply. Helpful as always ;)

I only gave different situations, on the assumption that there might be different requirement in different circumstances!

Just to clarify, and I'll edit my orignal post to correct; in my case 5, I was assuming that an emergency did happen during the flight, and that it was declared. The main difference being that the emergeny did result in damage or injury.

In any case it's good to know that there is no downside whatsoever in declaring an emergency. :ok:

Thanks for the replies.

dp

[Spikeee]

Very interesting subject.

Say you’re flying VMC and inadvertently fly into cloud, do a 180deg level turn but to no avail. I'd presume this would defiantly be a Mayday call, I recall reading in one of my books that its expected to lose control in 1min if not qualified to fly IMC. What would the procedure be here, first instance I’d presume you fly straight to MSA but would ATC guide you or what would happen?

And… If you flew into cloud (not like a FEW cloud) but the 180 deg turn worked and you came straight back out, would you make a precautionary landing and report this?


In both instances obviously the solution is to plan properly and not put yourself into the situation but i was just wondering what if...

Spike

[englishal]

Hmm, I used to have no sympathy with a PPL who get caught out by the weather, a few weeks ago I thought I'd go on a jolly old jaunt around Cornwall and see what this low level, bad weather Nav is all about. Scud running at 1000' just below the clouds, terrain up to 1300' around me...well aerials were somewhere out there but I couldn't see them. RIS not much good at that level, cloudbase lowering and closing in around me....I would have been seriously concerned had I not had instrument experience, instead I thought boogger that and climbed to FL40 and headed home in the clag. My only advice to PPL's who want to mess with the weather is to get an Instrument qualification or a helicopter [so you can land:D]. A mayday in this situation is not really much good, especially when you start to flap.

Cheers
EA:D

[ATCbabe]

Spikeee,

Anytime that a pilot enters cloud flying vfr then there is a problem!

The last thing a pilot needs to do is panic. The best thing he can do is call ATC.

The first thing ATC will do is find out your position and try and identify you. Once we know where you are we can help with terrain level info and if needs be give you tracks to fly.

If you are lower than the highest ground we will tell you the msa. It is up to you wither you want to climb or not. Some go lower trying to get out of cloud and sight of surface. The decision is yours. However if you are not above the msa we will not vector you incase you go into a hill or other object. We will give as much information as possible as to terrain, etc until such times as you fly out of cloud. The fact that you are or are not imc qualified is not our concern, and we dont police it. All we wanna do is see you safely land in the quickest and safest manor.

The quickest way to get our attention is to call a pan or mayday. I cant stress enough times how important it is to call a pan/mayday, even if it doesn't develop into a full scale emergency. You will have our undivided attention and help until things are sorted.


As for the origional question from Dublinflyer, as far as ATC are concerned all accidents which result in damage or injury must be reported.

[IO540]

Spikeee

As a PPL you are supposed to do the 180 to exit from the cloud, then you proceed elsewhere. No need to report that, I am sure.

But I suggest you get some instrument training; one day it will save your life. It takes only an hour or two to learn to fly level, holding a heading, on instruments.

[dublinpilot]

IO540,

I'd love to get a IR. In fact I hope to someday.

However as I fly just for fun, and have no commerical ambitions in aviation, the cost of an IR is just too prohibitive!

Unfortunately here in Ireland, we don't have an equviliant of an IMC rating either. :sad:

As for going to the US and getting an IR....well the only N reg a/c I have ever seen over here was a Gulf Stream IV!!! I believe there are some around, they but aren't available to me to hire here in Dublin.

But then again an IR is another completely different topic!

dp

[tyro]

Assuming for a moment, that there's enough of me (the PIC) left to be interviewed following an accident, what's to stop any potentially self-incriminatory statements made to the AAIB being used against me in a subsequent prosecution or civil suit?

Is there any rule which makes such statements inadmissable in court, or is it just left to my own sense of self-preservation to know when to stop co-operating with the AAIB investigators?

[IO540]

dublinpilot

Fair enough, you seem to know that a JAA IR is a lot of work etc, and an FAA IR needs an N-reg plane...

But what I was getting at was rather more along the lines of getting some instrument training without getting any rating at the end of it.

Even "PPL" flying is often done in not-great visibility and being able to fly partially on instruments is a great asset. Take present weather for example, very sunny and warm but often very hazy. Many PPL trainees are waiting for their qualifying cross country flight and their instructor won't let them go, because of the lack of a horizon, and because they are flying on HIS insurance. Extremely frustrating!! There are lots of "VFR" conditions when you can see ******-all. Flying into the sun is another example, etc.

[gasax]

Well tyro if you say it, they can use it. Which is where the natural tendancy to keep 'stum' comes in. Which is why there are so many ILAFFT sort of articles penned anonymously I guess.

IO-540 - As for a limited amount of IFR flying ability - I cannot see how that is going to help. The major criticism of the IMC rating is that it is a rating to get you into trouble. Unless you frequently practise these skills they don't actually exist. Even the level of training for that is not enough to keep the sunny side up for many people.

[englishal]

Get some instrument instruction then practice using it when you're flying around with your mates etc. Could save your life one day. I remember thinking after 15 hrs of the FAA IR that I would NEVER be able to fly on instruments. Thinking back about it though, I would have been able to keep control of an aircraft in the clag had I accidentally flown it. Part of it is the expectation that it is terrifying to be out of sight of the ground. 3 years on and a fair few hours actual I don't even think about it, I have flown through some pretty serious frontal IMC and although it was rough, raining so hard you could hear it in the headset quite loud, dark and quiet on the radio [cause no one else was flying :D] I actually enjoyed it. The thing that REALLY scares me is meeting an embedded Cb in there. Last flight I did we ended up in and out of IMC with these big Cbs towering around us. Nothing we could do except head for the lighter bits, at one point it was getting so dark in there, commercial traffic was "deviating for weather" on the radio my ass was starting to twitch :D... had a storm scope but it is not much good for avoiding cells. [We would have given a lot for a Radar at that point]. Not 30 minutes after landing a big thunder storm passed overhead :eek:

Still you live and learn. There is no reason a PPL should get themselves killed becasue of "normal" weather in my book...

Cheers
EA:D

[IO540]

gasax

The major criticism of the IMC rating is that it is a rating to get you into trouble.

I strongly disagree. Please suggest a rating which might get one OUT of trouble?? An ATPL?

If you happen to be an instructor, have you ever wondered why some 90% of PPLs chuck it all in before their PPL comes up for its first renewal? I would suggest the main reason is that the PPL syllabus, as it stands, is inadequate for flying in UK weather.

Currency is nearly everything. An IMCR pilot, with good currency on type, in a suitably equipped and maintained plane, will be a lot safer than somebody with every rating in the book who hasn't flown for a year.

The JAA IR, with its silly ATPL ground school, is out of reach of most private pilots. The much more sensible FAA IR is out of reach of most non-owners (because it needs an N-reg plane; you can run a group around one but they all need an FAA PPL or an endorsement). And the dropout rate of PPL-only pilots is incredibly high; perhaps just as well as a bare PPL is useless for much of the year.

Never knock the IMC Rating. It is the baseline for practical flying in the UK, a requirement for anyone who wants to do decent cross-country flights without the continual hassle of weather cancellations, weather diversions, etc. Over a year, the majority of the VFR or IFR flights I do would not have been prudently done by a PPL pilot, based on what the TAFs say.

[Horsepower]

dublinpilot,

Don't forget that most of the answers here have been based on the reactions of the relatively sensible chaps at the CAA. I'm sure the Institute Against Aviation's interpretation of things could be a little different. ;)

[dublinpilot]

Horsepower,

Don't worry.....I'm clued into that alright;)

dp

ps. for anyone who didn't get it Insitute Against Aviation = IAA= Irish Aviation Authority!

[GTOTO]

I have declared a Mayday on an engine failure, sump plug fell out was 6 hours after service. Was at 750 ft at the time, 5 miles out, was on the ground 60 seconds and 1.5 mile later.

Paper work was tied up with why the engine stopped rather than calling a Mayday.

The only thing I have noticed with calling a Mayday is, every one goes quiet, I think from experience the controling ATC should run through crash procedures and checks as standard. Your brain is runing flat out and some reminders help.

The main one was keep the air speed up, this kill a friend a couple of years later. Lost te engine on climb out tried a 180 and stalled it in from 100 feet, gentle reminders would have save he's life.

[ATCbabe]

the controling ATC should run through crash procedures and checks as standard.


GTOTO I have absoloutely NO idea what your procedures and checks are. I am not a pilot.

As to why everyone goes quiet, thats so you have time to think and do whatever checks you need to do. Noone wants to put more pressure on you than is already there.

And whilst you think everyone has gone quiet, let me assure you ATC are working their butts off with phone calls, not only alerting the emergency services at the airfield and outside emergency services (incase you dont make it to the field), but also phoning ajacent units trying to sort out traffic so that nothing will get in your way. And thats inbetween working our own traffic and clearing it away from you so you dont have to think about it.

[bookworm]

The main one was keep the air speed up, this kill a friend a couple of years later.

What was the registration of the aircraft, GTOTO? (Or type/date/location?) It would be instructive to be able to look at the AAIB report?

[david viewing]

Anyone who is curious about what assistance ATC can offer in an emergency could do worse than to listen to the recording at NAATS (http://www.naats.org/) under the heading MAYDAY. You might need broadband though.

[gasax]

IO-540, I'm sure you are very proud of your IMC.

But the official view is that it is insufficent for flight in IMC (CAA's view) and if you read a couple of the AAIB reports you will see it soundly condemned as giving people the impression of having skills that short changed them.

In the real world you also find the vast majority of people who get it, do not renew it. Yes there is a huge PPL dropout rate - there is even in the US where an IR is attainable, I very much doubt theIMC rating is anything much to do with it.

What keeps you safe if you insist on venturing out of sight of the horizon and the ground? Well the nearest to it is an FAA IR. But even that is going to be pretty useless unless you practise very regularly. IFR needs currency.

I completely agree that the situation with the JAA version is little short of disgraceful. I'm sure EASA will sort it out!!!!!

[A and C]

It would seem to me that all this talk of IMC ratings vs FAA/IR is rather off topic.

The time for declaring an emergency is when you think that it will help the situation , if the guy on the other end of the radio cant be of asistance then the chances are that the extra workload of the emergency radio procedures will be of more hiderance than help.

Once you have contained the situation then it may be time for a "mayday" call , I am left to wonder how meny forced landings have ended if disaster because the low time pilot was trying to talk on the radio rather than watching the airspeed and the field he was trying to put the aircraft into.

The emergency call is a good way of getting you the priority that your situation requires.

I once had a landing gear problem going into a large london airport , the drill on the aircraft was NOT to cycle the gear , this limmited the diverson options to an even larger london airport.
As I was going round the hold trying to sort this problem out I get a call from ATC to say that the airport manager had been on the phone and asked us "not to land at his airport" ( probably woried about the effect of a blocked runway on his duty free sales ) The ATC controlled reminded me that if I declaring an emergency would take the airport manager out of the loop , so that is just what I did.

Fortunatly the nose wheel locked as it touched the ground !.

I have to say that it was my veiw that the extra pressure that was put on me by the airport manager was not helpfull and I should have raised an MOR about that alone but the ATC attitude of "declare an emergency and get this idiot out of the loop" was most helpfull !.

[IO540]

gasax

It's not a matter of being proud of it; it is a matter of it being genuinely useful.

But the official view is that it is insufficent for flight in IMC (CAA's view)

Do you have a reference for the above? I know it is propagated in some sectors of the PPL training business but I believe that as a statement in isolation it is nonsense. You could say that a PPL is inadequate for flight in VMC, and for the UK airspace you would be right - for the 12hr/2yrs pilot which make up a chunk of the ex-PPL crowd. A PPL is certainly inadequate for flight down the PPL minima, 3k horiz. viz. and is not really adequate for night flying except in very bright conditions. Does that mean the PPL is no good?

You are only as good as your recent currency on type etc, and there is no reason why a pilot with the currency, flying a suitable plane (which is NOT easy to get on self fly hire) should be any less safe than an IR flying the same route etc. If the IMCR is taught as it has been by some; an NDB hold or two and in 15 hrs, that's not good enough but if it is taught by an instructor who knows better then it is every bit good enough.

True about the IMCR dropout rate (most I know have lapsed), but IMHO that only reflects the ridiculous PPL dropout rate. And what causes that? I have a pretty good idea but it's another very long story. But there are plenty of expired IRs around too; half the old instructors I know have lapsed IRs but can teach the IMCR because of grandfather rights. A lot of the younger ones have lapsed IRs too, because they have been waiting for the airline jobs for too many years, but they can teach the IMCR because they got one. Apart from currency, are these people somehow better?

The sad thing, which few instructors will tell you, is that you also need to get a decent plane, which means either getting into a decent group (NOT mostly VFR pilots; such groups tend to disagree when it comes to "nonessential" maintenance like getting the ADF fixed) or buy something yourself. I fly about 150hrs/year in a new £200k plane, IFR or IMC whenever necessary or desirable, and do instrument approaches regularly. I believe that's good enough.

A couple of AAIB reports tell you no more than someone flying with a GPS, flying into a hill in on very straight track, is an example of why GPS should not be used.....

The issues have little to do with the IMC Rating itself; more to do with lack of currency, poor training, and lack of available planes on which the DI doesn't drift a degree per minute and the horizon isn't about to fall out of the dashboard :O

[Wrong Stuff]

But the official view is that it is insufficent for flight in IMC (CAA's view)

Do you have a reference for the above?


General Aviation Safety Sense 23 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/ssl23.pdf) - see page 9 "Loss of Control in IMC"

[Lowtimer]

There's something I don't understand about that particular Safety Sense leaflet. It's a study of "166 fatal accidents" from all causes in GA from 1985 to 1994. So that's all of the fatals in GA, those involving raw PPLs and student pilots as well as IR holders, IMC holders, instructors, CPLs, etc. Weather was "a major factor" in fatals, but not the only one - yes, well, we know there are other kinds of accident e.g. aerobatic incidents, structural failures etc. In fact it talks elsewhere about young inexperienced PPLs crashing showing off to friends, etc. Then it says that "all but one of the pilots killed" losing control in IMC did not hold the IR and then uses this as a stick to beat the IMC rating. However, it does not say how many of those cases were IMC holders. Surely there were basic PPL holders involved as well? If only IMC holders crash in IMC, then the document should have made its case by saying so. Without knowing the proportion of raw PPLs in the mix, the logic of the subequent statements about the inadequacy of the IMC rating for IMC flight is not made. (As a purely VMC pilot I make no judgement about the substantive issue - I simply point out that the CAA document does not actually provide the case for the conclusion it draws.)
(edited for spelling)

[FlyingForFun]

Lowtimer's analysis of the leaflet is very good - this is one of the worst documents (or at least the worst paragraph of a document) I've ever seen come out of the CAA. I'm not saying it's wrong, without seeing the underlying numbers I don't know (although I know where my suspicions would lie).

One point Lowtimer misses is that it says that the IMC rating is useful for getting out of trouble. It then goes on to say that currency is vital. But it makes no suggestion as to how an IMC-rated pilot is to stay current enough to be able to get out of trouble safely if he is not to intentionally fly in IMC. :confused: (I would add quotes, but although my browser let me read the document earlier today, it crashes when I try to read it again now!)

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

[gasax]

From memory the number of PPLs is around 30,000.

The CAA issue approximately 500 IMCs per year - so that would suggest there are around 1000 current at any time.

(They also issue around 40 IRs per year -presumably to dedicated PPLs or those going on to do an ATPL).

If you check the CAA's reports on progress against AAIB recommendations you will see something like 7 years worth of 'well there are going to be new European licencing rules.....' etc. This was followed up in 2001 or 2 by the CAA meeting with GAAC, reviewing the situation and then stating there was not a problem with the IMC rating content. Unfortunately it did not address the issues raised by the AAIB on accidents that occurred to PPLs with IMCs crashing in IMC.

Hence you now get the policy on IMC ratings that it is not intended for serious use in IMC, it is simply to allow a PPL to make an approach to airfields in conditions that they might otherwise not be able to (????????).

The AAIB's recommendation was for the IMC rating flying content to more closely approach that of the full IR, which largely makes some sense (but only if you leave out all the nonsense theoretical content from JAR and actually make it look like an FAA IR). But it isn't going to happen because of NIH and JAR and now EASA.

If you work at it there is no reason that with good experience built on an IMC you should be safe enough.

But the vast majority of PPLs do not fly IFR from one month to the next. It's expensive and often unnecessary, so they don't get that experience or the currency and that is what makes it a rating to get you into trouble. If the initial skill level were higher that might help - but somehow I doubt it.

As for a PPL not being a high enough standard for flying in the UK. Well that is another issue and a can of worms I would prefer not to open very far. But it stems from the same route - flying is expensive, most people have to ration the amount they do. If the amount they do does n't interest them or is very restricted - yes they give up - much like virtually all the IMC holders.

[bookworm]

Lowtimer's analysis of the leaflet is very good - this is one of the worst documents (or at least the worst paragraph of a document) I've ever seen come out of the CAA. I'm not saying it's wrong, without seeing the underlying numbers I don't know (although I know where my suspicions would lie).

I would concur. The underlying numbers are available in CAP667. There were 13 accidents of the total of 166 that involved loss of control in IMC. "More than 3/4 had no IR or IMC rating (one had an IR)". I would suggest that the most likely distribution would be:

1 IR
2 IMC rating
10 no IR or IMC rating

It's not possible to determine from CAP667 which accidents involved the IMC rated pilots and, even if it were, the reports are not available online.

But the claimed inference in SSL23 is, in scientific terminology, utter bollocks.

[englishal]

Isn't it more important the number of accidents AVOIDED becasue the holder had an IMC rating? Any sort of instrument training is a good thing. It teaches far more accurate flying as well as flight by sole reference to the instruments.

Now I don't think that a 15 hr IMC course is enough for someone to tackle hard IMC head on, unless they've got a death wish, however I do believe that it is a licence to learn. You start of with marginal VFR, progress to transiting cloud layers, then you start bashing about the frontal stuff, and in my opinion someone who takes this attitude to instrument flight will become a far better instrument pilot than say an fATPL holder who got the ticket, then a year later lets it lapse [becasue they're working as an FI teaching VFR PPL's and never use it....which is what I've seen a lot of people do].

IFR flight is not expensive, in the UK we have a very "free" system that lets a pilot on a jolly switch from VFR to IFR without formality during the flight. I often fly IFR and file an IFR flight plan using the IMC rating, doesn't normally cost me any more than a VFR flight. I would suggest that inexperienced IMC holders go up with a more experienced person and practice......

Cheers
EA :D

[IO540]

The "Loss of control in IMC" in that CAA leaflet does not make any sense at all given the IMCR syllabus and the fact that the CAA evidently approves of the IMCR being taught! You are already taught to "get out of trouble" in the PPL (a 180 on instruments).

I suspect it was produced by someone who lives well behind the times and probably does not fly much beyond short local trips. One clue to this is the bit about not fiddling with a GPS. However it is OK to fiddle with the throttle, the fuel valve, the carb heat, numerous things that need to be watched.... While I have absolutely no wish to detract from the safety messages in these leaflets, they are occassionally written in a very patronising and not useful manner.

Re the stats, very very few current PPL pilots have an IR. You can see the data at

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_LRIssues_2002_03.pdf

Out of 2233 PPL/A licenses issued, only TWO had an IR; 337 had the IMCR. Previous years' figures show a much higher proportion of PPLs with an IR; presumably these were a hangover from the CAA PPL / CAA IR days and this shows how JAA has practically killed off the PPL/IR option.

So.... the bottom line is that the IMCR is the only realistic option for a UK pilot who wants to fly seriously, unless he can go the FAA PPL/IR route but that in turn needs an N-reg plane which is not an option for most pilots...

[bookworm]

Out of 2233 PPL/A licenses issued, only TWO had an IR; 337 had the IMCR

I think you're misinterpreting the table. While just 2 IRs were added to JAR PPL(A)s, 37 were added to UK PPL(A)s. Most pilots who go for an IR have been around a few years, so they have the older flavour of licence.

[GroundBound]

I would dearly like to get an IR for my PPL, but it is completely impractical and financially crippling.

The IMC rating would be great, financially possible, but it won't let me fly outside the UK, and I can't keep it current - no good there then!

So, the only thing left is take some instrument flying lessons with a local instructor for the "just in case" situation. Which comes back to the emergency situations. Supposing the weather has closed around you, some high-ish ground around but you can't see it, and there are tall aerials too! Now what?

precautionary landing in a field?
climb into the clouds, knowing you've done some IMC training, but haven't got an official rating, call a PAN and get some assistance to an airfield were you can make a cloud break and land on something proper?


Which is safer, and how do the JAA rules on IR for PPL's help to make flying safer for us, then?

[RodgerF]

Quote:

precautionary landing in a field?


Why not? Glider pilots do it all the time. Its part of the PPL syllabus. Better to be on the ground somewhere than trying to bumble around in cloud.

[Evo]

climb into the clouds, knowing you've done some IMC training, but haven't got an official rating, call a PAN and get some assistance to an airfield were you can make a cloud break and land on something proper?


Even with an IMC i'd seriously consider a PAN call in this situation. Things have obviously started to go wrong if you have to make an unplanned trip in IMC, so you might as well have all the help you can get. Without an IMC it's a MAYDAY.

[englishal]

Things have obviously started to go wrong if you have to make an unplanned trip in IMC
Nah, someone with an IMC rating should be able to handle a few coulds...at least I hope so, or else the training DOES need some modification. True you should know the weather before you go, but in the UK there is no real problem bumbling into IMC, I've done it a few times, and the saftest thing to do is climb to a safe height and either continue or turn back [in the IMC]. The most important thing to remember is don't let emotion take control and stay calm, and remember that aeroplanes don't just fall out of the sky in cloud unless you let them. Nail the AI, and make small gentle control inputs while keeping the scan going. I would think that a panicy cautionary landing would be far more dangerous, in fact I remember reading on the AAIB website a case where a bloke stuffed his plane trying to make the landing....

Cheers
EA:D

[Southern Cross]

Going back to scenario #3 in the original post (mechanical problem safely resolved eventually eg rough running engine), my humble offering is that a Pan call is the height of common sense, having had to do this twice in the last coupe of days. It just gets the correct amount of care and attention that takes a little of the stress out of what can be a difficult situation. No one should be considering what happens thereafter, just ask for and get the most assistance that you can. What happens afterwards, if anything, is utterly irrelevant to getting help at the time you need it.

[IO540]

bookworm

Yes you may well be right though I would perhaps differ as to the degree. The JAA PPL has been out for about 3 years. Anyone who learnt to fly for a real purpose would have done the PPL and went on to an IMCR or IR ASAP; it was obvious to me within a few weeks of starting the PPL training that a PPL alone is nearly useless for flying for any purpose (due to weather). I don't think that many "sunny day only" pilots will go for an IR.

But regardless of the interpretation, the IR % is still very low compared to the USA.

Regarding the later posts here, I disagree that an IMCR pilot should call a PAN upon inadvertent entry into IMC. Your training, if current, is more than adequate for flight in IMC, of any duration (subject to fatigue, presence of an autopilot) and an IAP at the far end. If you haven't flown for 23 months and 29 days and can't handle it, that's a completely different story and nothing whatsoever to do with the IMCR. You could be an ATPL; it would make no difference.

[FlyingForFun]

I disagree that an IMCR pilot should call a PAN upon inadvertent entry into IMCIf I remember correctly, when the idea of an IMC-rated pilot (assuming he is current) declaring a Pan on inadvertent entry into IMC was originally raised (way back before we got side-tracked) in a specific scenario where the pilot was not only below MSA, but actually below the level of terrain (hills and masts) nearby. In this case, yes I would declare a Pan, no question at all. In fact, a Mayday may be more appropriate, since there is no doubt I need help immediately. Once above the MSA, though, the emergency can be cancelled, and I can continue flying IFR.

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

[IO540]

OK, let me take this one step at a time.

A pilot qualified to fly in IMC (which is the IMCR or the IR; the difference between the two is less than perfectly plausible differences in pilot currency) enters IMC accidentally, and knows that he is below the MSA.

He should know enough about where he is to know which way to turn and climb, perhaps? In which case a PAN would be right if he's going to bust some airspace, or the field has an IAP and there might be instrument training going on.

How can anyone on the ground help him, if he's close enough to the terrain to think a straight ahead climb is not safe? Only an existing radar service would be of help in the available time. And if he is far enough away from hills etc he can just climb up, surely?

I am trying to get away from knocking the IMC Rating. It's nothing to do with it. A 25,000 hour ATPL, finding himself in IMC below the MSA and unsure of which way to go, will be in the same position.

One should NEVER fly below the MSA, VMC or IMC, unless taking off or landing. I suppose one could "discover" a cloud on a long final in a "few at 600ft" scenario .. but then climbing straight ahead should be OK; how many airfields around the UK have a 600ft hill at the far end of the runway, on the runway heading?

If I was totally lost after some prank like that, I would spend my brain capacity in such a dire emergency on getting out of it, getting some orientation sorted out, not making radio calls. Autopilot (if you have one) on immediately, a rapid climb, GPS and the chart.

Sorry if I am missing something here...

[FlyingForFun]

IO540,

On reflection, I find myself starting to change my mind and agreeing with you.

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

[dublinpilot]

One should NEVER fly below the MSA, VMC or IMC, unless taking off or landing.

That I can't agree with. IMC yes, that is true, but not VMC.

MSA is generally above the cloud base any day that there is a cloud base! Well that based on how it's calculated here in Ireland. 1000ft above the highest obstace within 8km of track.

[gasax]

Well up here in Scotland MSA is frequently above the ceiling.

But I do think you're on the right track.

There are not many scenarios where yelling Pan or Mayday is going to help. It will add to your workload and probably at a time when you don't need it.

Lost, IMC in CAS, near a IAP in Class D - then shout. Otherwise sort yourself out - fly the aeroplane.

[IO540]

dublinpilot

On the basis of that way of calculating the MSA, I have no problem with that provided the visibility is OK and the peaks are far enough away so a PPL could either descend straight ahead or do a 180 and descend then if necessary. But a fair number of people do get killed that way, getting squeezed between rising ground, lowering cloudbase, and worsening visibility. A lot of the stuff emanating from the CAA is telling people to make the turnaround decision early.

gasax

Surely one would sort out the plane first, and anything else (like PAN calls) comes second. The chance of hitting another plane is extremely small.

I suppose this debate would come down to how far the adjacent high ground is when calculating the MSA...