I must be missing something. Albeit I get the basis of AnFis post.
PPLs are taught to fly VFR/VMC referencing a visual horizon to a position on a windscreen. They start this exercise away from the ground and learn how it is harder (in the early stages) mastering this art nearer the ground whilst hovering. If the horizon disappears due to low cloud, then how is there anything inadvertent about the inevitable?
Why do sections of our community insist upon pressing on until tragedy? Many FIs and FEs go to great lengths to ensure their students are safe and responsible. Legislation aside, you're an FE aren't you AnFi? For the 20-30% you quote do they fail check rides?
IMHO the problems are far wider than the individual. So to add to the controvesy.
Because helicopter flying is fun, a ppl course may not point out they can't fly all of the time, or that as a PPL no flight is that urgent that it cannot wait until another time.
A mindset that failing to reach your planned destination is a shamefull failure. From one of the earliest posts on this thread - it's been suggested local weather was worse than forecast and after 3 failed attempts to make progress (to a site less than 20 miles away) a low ground route and a break in the weather allowed progress to be made. The forecast is but a planning aid, if you encounter worse then rework the plan. If I diverted or picked a field due to unexpected nasty low clag, then I'd need a significant sustained improvement to warrant an attempt to continue VFR/VMC. So why do we try multiple attempts in the hope of finding a lucky gap?
Some schools simply authorise SFH sorties taking little direct interest in exactly where and what a sortie will involve. Perhaps some places actually enforcing their SFH limits and taking some accountability would be another good starting point.
In a similar vein hands up all those pilots that know of industry peers that fly unstabilised single engined helicopters in cloud. (Or proclaim that in bad weather you simply go lower and slower and then lower and slower still.... so that some get so low and so slow, without landing in a field, that control in IMC becomes basically impossible) We all know that many feel that they have the required skills so why restrict flight in cloud to stabilised twins and IFR qualified pilots. Legality aside, these pilots may have the required ability, but lesser mortals that hear of their tales (because skud running and going into cloud and the subsequent recovery is so easy/so cool/so much fun and therefore warrants boastful group discussion) and attempt similar may/clearly don't. I've overheard stories like this from ppls, and cpls and am as guility as all the other listeners for sometimes staying quiet and not saying publicly to their face that they are idiots. Instead we do it quietly. Perhaps as a community we should all take an interest in trying to stop these type of crashes before legislation cripples us?
The SIM IMC training I felt was included to show it was different to looking out the window. I dont think it was ever intended to be a panacea for surviving if going IMC at low level and/or low speed when stress levels are already through the roof. Every CFI on the planet has the ability to ensure their FIs make it clear that SIM IMC is nothing like the real thing and that failing to heed that warning will probably prove very costly.
Re the FNPT suggestion. This was an idea I discussed with another probably two years ago. Our slant was to suggest that insurers offered a lower premium to operators/owners whom only used pilots that had voluntarily attended a course on poor weather flying run at an FNPT. We came up with a basic course suggestion run over 1-2 days (depending on numbers) in conjunction with an FNPT operator and even had discussion with a major UK insurer..... but some how the idea just fizzled out
