JAA PPL rating - Insufficient IMC say CAA !

[RVR800]

THE NEW PPL syllabus, introduced by the JAA in 1999, reduced the amount of a student's instrument flying from four to one hours. The CAA says that, 'Whilst this might be adequate for flight over land, it places a student who has to fly over the sea at a disadvantage.'

This follows an incident in which a student pilot, on solo cross-country, became confused and disorientated when returning to Guernsey. The aircraft was seen to be tracking south instead of west. The pilot panicked and said he was spatially disorientated. He descended and became more relaxed on sighting land, but was still unable to fly straight and level. He did land safely.

The CAA has written to all flying schools in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, strongly recommending that additional training is given students before they fly solo over water.

[Noggin]

I don't think the CAA are saying that there is insufficient "IMC" at all. Operation from islands is not the norm and it is only appropriate that some additional time be spent adjusting to this type of operation, a bit like doing additional IF when night flying. If you are over the sea for 15 minutes on each navex, its ideal to practice IF skills without adding to the syllabus time.

In any event the syllabus hours are minimums, it is encumbant upon the training provider to train students to operate safely in whatever environment they happen to be in, this may take additional time.



[This message has been edited by Noggin (edited 18 May 2001).]

[RVR800]

IMHO..

The JAA PPL should incorporate minimum
hours requirements for safe operation in the
event of inadvertant entry into instrument
meteorological conditions commensurate with operation from the British Isles (which is a JAA area)

I think the CAA were highlighting an important point.

The American PPL (ICAO) still requires
4 hours Instrument .. ?

[Sensible]

And still the usa has a large number of fatalities each year due to spatial disorientation due to entering IFR conditions. The only way forward in my view is a mandatory Instrument/IMC rating and currency.

[RVR800]

Sensible point indeed..

Under JAA there seems to be a divergence

PPL - easier instrument standards
IR - more expensive/difficult standards

=> Cash strapped individuals will be
less proficient on instruments

- - - - - - - - -

Thank goodness the CAA elected to retain the IMC rating



[This message has been edited by RVR800 (edited 21 May 2001).]

[Squawk 8888]

One hour only? Yikes! In Canada we need 5 hours for PPL, 5 more for night and 10 more for commercial, which IMHO will let you do a 180 if you hit a cloud. Minima notwithstanding it's probably a good idea to get an hour or so at least once a year.

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

[IMY]

The reducing of mandatory instrument training for the PPL is one of the changes I do agree with. Simply because it goes some way to discouraging PPLs from believing they can fly on instruments! This is when most of the accidents seem to happen.

Try this: after letting your student fly around with goggles on or screens up, to a standard which appears quite safe, take the goggles off and fly them into a cloud. Nearly always the student loses control. There is definately a psycological factor which causes panic in inexperienced pilots when surrounded by cloud.

PPLs should be tought to avoid IMC and discouraged from believing they can handle it.

[Sensible]

Actually, I thought that my last post would draw a lot of fire, obviously the wrong forum! Seriously, from my experience, 5 hrs simulated instrument training during PPL was insufficient preparation for the real thing which I encountered due to poor airmanship (lesson learned) I consider an IMC to be minimum requirements for lengthy cross country flights, on the other hand, flying is so expensive that there would be even less GA pilots around if an IMC was mandatory. It seems that there are few IMC rated pilots, my local airfield goes deathly quiet when it even looks like there is goung to be a low ceiling. From my limited experience, I have concluded that only the well heeled pilots and those intending to go commercial take the trouble to get an IMC or Instrument Rating most being content with a PPL.

Real IFR training experience as apposed to simulated IFR, now that would be a good idea. It's strange how when it all goes dark and "stuff" goes rushing by that it seems all so different than the hood or foggles!

Here's the million dollar question: how many instructors would be happy letting a student PPL fly them in actual IFR conditions?????

[Squawk 8888]

Sensible, the point of hood time isn't to allow one to fly in IMC, it's so we stand a chance of getting the hell out should we stumble into it, plus in my experience it can give us a bit of respect for the challenges involved in instrument flying- in my student days I found nothing more exhausting than a session on instruments. The instructor I'm flying with now treated me to a rather effective way to appreciate how deceptive the senses can be- she made me close my eyes a fly the plane based on the feel of it. Rather scary when she let me open them, but a valuable lesson.

------------------
Per dementia ad astra

[This message has been edited by Squawk 8888 (edited 21 May 2001).]

[destructor]

I FIND THAT IT IS ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE THE IMC STUDENT INTO THE REAL THING EVEN WHEN THEY ARE SCREENS UP. MANY TIMES THEY FEEL THE LEENS WHICH SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CHEETING OR INADVERTANTLY GETTING VISUAL INPUTS FROM OUTSIE.

------------------
You will return to mother earth when the tank is empty.

[Sensible]

Squawk 888,

Quote: " the point of hood time isn't to allow one to fly in IMC, it's so we stand a chance of getting the hell out should we stumble into it"

Exactly, but, that is theoretical, in practice, it is not always practicable to do a 180 so the options are quite different as in the instance that RVR800 cites in his post.

Destructor, the question was, whether you would allow the student to take the controls in IFR conditions, quite different than you taking the student through them when you have control!

[Sensible]

Sorry to be a ghoul but I think that this and similar incidents are relevent:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20010407X00718&key=1

[Fuji Abound]

I have removed my comment as it was not entirely relevant.

[This message has been edited by Fuji Abound (edited 22 May 2001).]

[Balance!]

And do you know what, the really galling Thing is - they've now introduced 5hrs Instrument training into the helicopter syllabus. Its hard enough convincing people not to chance going into cloud. Take a look at some of the helicopter accident reports recently. I'm concerned that this measure will increase the 'gethomeitis' in the well heeled executive in his souped up R44 with slaved DI/VOR, colour GPS, AI, ADF etc. and we'll see more CFIT's a coming.

[Whirlybird]

Balance,

I've heard that argument before about the five hours instrument training for PPL(H) JAR. I did my PPL(H) pre-JAR, and fairly recently decided to do the five hours instrument flying anyway, as I thought it might just save my life if I inadvertantly flew into a cloud while looking at the map or something. I'm very very glad I did it. Firstly it sharpened up my flying a lot. Secondly, while flying over the channel in not-too-wonderful visibility for the first time last weekend, knowing how to keep up a scan was of some help. But most importantly, it proved to me just how incredibly difficult helicopter instrument flying is, compared with fixed wing. A 180 took all my energy and concentration. One thing I'm now sure of, I AM NEVER EVER EVER GOING TO GO NEAR A CLOUD IN A HELICOPTER!

I take your point, and of course everyone's different. But aren't most CFIT rotary accidents because the pilot leaves it just a little bit too late when deciding to land in a field and wait out the weather? And don't you think a bit of instrument training might, just might, save some of those?

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

[RVR800]

IMHO..

One of the things about flying that I have noticed is that there are circumstances
- and flying over water is one of these
situations - when an appreciation of instrument flying is important even when the
vis is within limits. Another siuation is
low sun on the approach. I think that the
1 hour instrument minimum is too low
and should be increased back to the international (ICAO) norm..

[Irish Steve]

I'm reading these comments, and in the R&N section there's talk of a zero Flight time ATPL in the future.
Where does that lead us??

Can simulators properly simulate low sun directly on the other end of the runway? Is it really sensible that a crew member has no single pilot experience at all? That has to be even more dangerous than low instrument hours.

Many years ago, I was incredibly lucky not to get killed by taking a trip that ended up IMC, and with only 20 hours, I did a better job of handling the thing than the supposedly IMC rated instructor. I can tell you I learnt a h*ll of a lot that day, and made some very important decisions that have stood me in good stead since. The more I see of the JAA and it's ways, the more convinced I become that they are not the Joint Aviation Authority, they're the Joint Airline Association, and inconvenient things like GA and Business aviation just don't matter to them at all. Maybe soon, CAA will see through the smoke and mirrors and decide that maybe it's not such a rosy future after all!!

[foxmoth]

The next question is - how do you do all that is needed in the projected NPPL within the hours they propose.
Yes I know that this is a minimum, but it should be a realistic minimum for someone that is reasonably able and does the course in a short time span, otherwise they may just as well have gone straight to the JAA PPL.

[Final 3 Greens]

It seems to me that there are "two" kinds of IMC in the context fo this thread.

The first is the hazy "no horizon" situation commented upon by the CAA. The pilot can see the surface (thus avoiding the panic of being in cloud), but instrument skills are required to fly accurately.

The second is fully blown IMC in potentially turbulent cloud.

I would respectfully opine that the average PPL would benefit from instrument training for the former.

Whether an IMC rating is sufficient to tackle the latter is a matter for debate by others more qualified than me.

However, I do regret the passing of the 4 hours instrument training from the PPL; it taught me (a) that IMC flight is challenging and that I was not equipped to do it and (b) that hazy conditions can be countered by the use of some of the panel, so long as the ground can be seen clearly and VFR airmanship does not suffer.

To extend the debate - what does the forum make of the night rating ... allowing IFR flight by VMC trained pilots?

[destructor]

The night rating is now a different animal as the student does not have the 5 hours instrument time.So I/F has to be given to cover that area as I like the first 300 ft on instruments after take off then back onto visual flight.As a point I leave the landing light on for flight and have the student do the same for 2 reasons:-1 you get that little warning as the cloud comes when in the dark areas away from the town/villages.2 as the area I fly in also has fast jet traffic they may see the aircaft that little bit earlier.

------------------
You will return to mother earth when the tank is empty.

[Noggin]

F3Greens

Regarding your last comment, IFR is a state of mind, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the weather.

You fly at night in sight of the surface (well it would be if the moon was brighter) in VMC, you adjust to a quadrantal at least 1000 feet above the highest ground , file a flight plan (maybe) you are now IFR, what has changed?