The problem with doing something and getting away with it is that often rather than learning a lesson and trying one's best not o do that again, it actuallt has the opposite effect and people can at times get the idea that if it was OK than time then it will be OK again, and again until their luck runs out.
-----
tonyhalsall,
You are totally correct this was about being VFR and I believe that the decision to turn back, divert and land is best made while still VFR.
------
Fuji Abound,
Now let me put that in context. Setting off into a 500 foot overcast and doing a long sector in IMC with an instrument approach, concerns about the freezing level, turbulence and all without an auto pilot is hard - very hard. These are some of the most challenging flying conditions you will encounter and not surprisingly the risks are high.............The intention was to fly the whole route VMC. In fact the base came down to around 500 feet en route...........I did not plan the flight IFR.........rather than perhaps returning straight to base
You seem to contradict yourself. If setting off into a 500ft overcast IFR is very hard then how is doing the same thing unplanned equal or less of a risk......isn't the risk greather?
However the CAA and AOPA and every other safety organisation warns us not to fly VFR into IFR unless it is an emergency and then warn us that we risk a sizeable chance of not making it.
But the most disturbing thing that I hear from pilots is that they continued "rather than perhaps returning straight to base" because regardless of if they made it easily or with difficulty, that statement shouts 'get-home itis' as the CAA call it.
Yes, flying along below a safe altitude in poor visibility is bad news but is it not better to take more time to improve one's ability to predict and evaluate the weather so as to decide in advance if the flight can be made safely in VMC or not? After all your own description of the weather available to you prior to departure says that VFR flight was at the very best going to be marginal.
When I fly round the FIR in the UK, I will only fly VFR if I can remain atleast 1000ft below cloud in 5K+ visibility regardless of what level I fly at. That ensures that not only can I divert early if the cloud base starts to lower but more importantly, I have some chance of spotting the flights that reguluarly drop out of an overcast in the middle of nowhere. However, that is a personal limit and everyone can have their own. What is important however is that having set a personal limit, one sticks to it.
Does the poor UK weather stop me from flying with such restrictive weather.......well yes it does stop flights that are for sightseeing or similar but if the we are going somewhere than we will decide in advance to go IFR and make the appropriate planning in advance or we can go down the pub insted (it's cheaper!). After all, it is flying for fun for recreation and for the joy of it. If we want to fly at all times we will move to where the climate suits that NOT take risks with what we have here.
In work I get to fly IFR all the time and zoom all over the place. It is not difficult, it is actually easier than VFR flying. However, the view usually isn't the same!
you WILL be a better pilot if you go out and get an instrument rating and use it
I disagree. Getting an instrument rating will give a different skill set and in some cases a bit more knowledge. It will not improve your ability as a pilot it will usually take a poor pilot and enable that pilot fly operate poorly both VFR and IFR!
The statement you make is simply a marketing tool used by schools to sell IMC and IRs no more.
One could even argue ( and I would agree in part) that pilots who fly mostly IFR find it hard to cope when having to fly VFR......thus the most regular users of the IR loose the origional VFR piloting skills.
As for the IMC rating. I remember when Ron Campbell got the idea accepted by the CAA. Let's just say that today's operation has less to do with the original idea. What is the rate of loss of control (VFR and IFR) and CFIT incidents on private flights like sine the IMC than before the IMC?
In my opinion if you took a similar bunch of SEP CURRENT instrument rated pilots and gave them a totally unexpected transition from VMC to IMC the whole thing would be a non event
Actually as stated previously, that is not the case even in the sim where as I said a large number of them killed themselves by omitting something as simple as switching on the Pitot Heat!
Very few PPL/IR holders are really current (suficient number of approaches and time in IMC in the past 28 days and recent emergency training) even less IMC holders.
Of course the stats don't tell us of the many pilots who just about escape hitting other aircraft, terrain or who loose control in IMC but manage to recover at a later stage before killing themselves.......imagine if every such case was reported!
Finally, look at the RAF......they have carefully selected highly trained and highly skilled pilots who considder a pull up into IMC from low level as a very serious situation and have a dedicated squalk to highlight their plight to every ATC unit and will obtain radar service ASAP. If these highly skilled and current pilots treat that situation so seriously, why is there constant peer pressure within GA that hey going VFR to IFR is no real problem........even if it will make your flight illegal?
Overall - if you are a PPL - precautionary landing is the only option. if you are an IMC holder or IR holder then only go IMC if the divert/ precautionary landing option is not available and then declare an emergency, get help and of course, report what happened when you land (hopefuly) safely!
Regards,
DFC