Lowering cloud base rising terrain

[Fuji Abound]

DFC

I get the impression you are opposed to flying IMC on grounds that it cannot be done safely. I am uncertain at what "level" of pilot or aircraft you would not be opposed.

If you are opposed to private pilots flying SEP or MEP aircraft IMC I accept the risks in the majority of cases are higher than flying VMC. I suppose the same is true for any aircraft and any pilot. Lose three generators on an Airbus and you want to be visual as soon as possible if not infact on the ground.

The discussion was about what you would do if you encountered a deteriorating base, ultimately preventing you continuing VMC. Someone said if you were IR you would climb IMC to the MSA. Others said for a current IR pilot the risk of doing this was less than any of the alternatives. You countered by suggesting to do so was illegal and very risky.

Now lets examine the “facts” on which you rely.

The matter of how the flight started and what planning may or may not have been done was not in issue. I suggested in the scenario outlined by the original poster a current IR pilot would have considered the possibility of becoming IMC. Had he done so, interpreting the ANO in the way that you do, he was legal. Had he done so, and simply been caught out by the weather because the TAFs proved unreliable, again he would be legal. If however he had ignored the TAFs that suggested the flight could not have been conducted VMC, then again interpreting the ANO as you do the departure may have been illegal BUT the transition from VMC to IMC was not, because the pilot took the most reasonable action possible to ensure the continued safety of the flight given the circumstances. In other words in none of the circumstances was the transition in itself from VMC to IMC illegal. I would add that I am sure we would all hope none of us would set off ignoring TAFs that required an IFR flight “plan”, and I think we have all made the assumption the weather deteriorated unexpectedly on our luckless pilot.

In terms of what the authorities would legally expect I wonder how well a current IR pilot would fair justifying flying into a mast at 500 feet or misjudged a landing injuring a third party compared with climbing IMC to the MSA?

You rely on “current” ME/IR pilots inadvertently entering IMC. Which study are you in fact referring to? I know of one, but it doesn’t seem to me the same study you have in mind. Lets be clear. Freezing conditions are very dangerous if you are not prepared for them. They are dangerous even if you are prepared, if the aircraft is not suitably equipped. As I said I would hope our hapless pilot with his IR would have some idea of the height of the freezing level, assuming for one moment the flight was in the colder months - we are not told. In the study the pilots encountered an “unexpected” failure in conditions they had not been told existed. The aircraft was also equipped to a bare minimum - in fact below the minimum most of us would have these days. The facts are instrument failures are pretty rare fortunately. Yes they occur, and yes they are always difficult to handle. On balance however what is the probability of your suffering an instrument failure on the one occasion you get “caught out” by bad weather and decide to climb rather than scud run. I suspect the probability is way less than scud running into a mast!

You then move on to the PPL syllabus and tell us the instrument training was introduced to enable a 180 degree backtrack. I had previously made the point that this training made a pilot a better pilot. I think you have talked yourself into supporting that position. Our hapless pilot because of his limited instrument training is able to safely conduct this procedure - he is therefore a better pilot because of that training compared with a pilot without. He would be an even better pilot if that training had gone further in the circumstances outlined.

I tell you what put 30 PPLs in the sim in the circumstances described. 10 have no instrument training at all, 10 have the current PPL instrument training and 10 are IR. The base has come down to 500 feet, and scatter a few 800 feet masts around with support wires and some rising terrain to say 800 feet. The PPLs have never seen anything like this before, the terrain is pretty inhospitable, some attempt a landing between the boulders, some “plod”on, most panic, the PPLs with a bit of instrument training back track, some get the 180 wrong, some hit masts, most make a reasonable job of it, the IR pilots immediately climb. Tell me, you have got a fiver to bet, which group is your money on?

Finally you talk about old and bold pilots and “zooming around” for half of aviation’s history. That seems to me sensationalism. It seems to say, and I assume you have an IR, that in the circumstances originally outlined you would personally have done something other than climb IMC. Is that what you are saying? If it is, what would you have done. To add a bit of spice, you are in Wales and not to keen on the landing terrain and the weather has generally closed in around you.

So to sum up, finding yourself “unexpectedly” IMC with an IR is an issue, but I still find no evidence in what you say that the transition from VMC to IMC is illegal nor do I find any evidence to suggest for a CURRENT IR pilot it presents a greater risk than scud running. Whether our hapless pilot may then have problems landing at destination or alternate or whether he may be really unlucky and suffer an instrument failure or find himself in freezing conditions are issues, but lets pull ourselves back to the real world for a moment, if his destination and / or alternate required an instrument approach and / or he suffered an instrument failure it would be a really really bad day - maybe as bad as had he scud run!

DFC you seem in short to be determined to throw everything at our hapless IR pilot - freezing conditions at relatively low level of which he was not aware, ASI or some other instrument failure, worries about acting illegally a lack of true currency and doubtless a few other woes. On the other hand you seem to ignore our low level VMCer having any instrument problems, running into any masts or other tall objects whilst he is scud running or finding a suitable place to land whilst at only 5oo feet. For this reason it leaves me worried as I opened that you are opposed to IMC per say and will unbalance the argument to support your bias.

It leaves me even more worried that our hapless pilot will have read this thread, ignore all his instrument training and scud run because he remembers this thread and worries he might have an instrument failure climbing or might be prosecuted by the CAA, so while he is worrying he hits rising terrain or a mast or a boulder and a commentator of the AAIB report speculates why our pilot ignored all his training and ended up another statistic.

There we all go but for the grace of God.