Lowering cloud base rising terrain [Archive]

bar shaker

1st Jun 2005, 19:30

Here's my story of flying into bad weather.

On the day in question, I was a very low hours pilot with a microlight. A very experienced microlighting mate had dropped his aircraft over at Enstone for a throttle cable warranty job and I had said I would fly him over to collect it.

I'd arranged to collect him from Sarfend, where he is normally hangared.

The sky was a beautiful blue, but there was low lying mist. As I DI my aircraft, I got two telephone calls. The first was from a friend who was on his from Essex to Wales, to collect his rally car after a service. He was on the M4. The TAFs to the west had forecast CBs, which I had expected to fly around. He was calling as he knew I was flying that way and he could not believe how torential the rain was. The second call was from my pax, who was waiting at Delta, who told me how beautiful Sarfend was that morning.

Tyres all kicked, I took off. I couldn't see a bloody thing and flew a circuit back in.

I called my pax and said I would have a smoke and let the mist burn off. 45 minutes later I was airbourne. I flew to Southend at 800ft as there was cloud above that and mist below it. Although only 10 miles, I had put Southend in the GPS and doubt I would have found it if I had not been following Mr Garmin's line. The first I saw of Southend was the perimeter fence, at which point ATC saw me and said to come straight in, clearing me in the process.

I told my friend that it was not flying weather and we should hang around for an hour and let the mist burn off. This we did and then we set off for Enstone, with blue skies above us.

The mist had now gone but the cloud had got thicker. It had been 1500ft at Southend, but by the time we approached The Triangle of Death, it was down to 800ft. I wasn't happy, but I chugged on, as my much more experienced friend wasn't saying anything about the weather.

As we neared the extended centreline for Stapleford, my mate asked "Are you happy flying in this?"

Saying nothing, I did a 180.

I got myself in trouble by thinking my experienced mate would say something first. He sat there thinking I had balls of steel and the navigation skills of a flying god.

We were above terrain and visual with it, but since then I never fly into poor viz. I've done 200 hours since then and it still scares me.

bladewashout

1st Jun 2005, 20:19

I'm with the 121.5 Pan. First time I called it I was lost through a mistake in reading my flight plan compounded by strong, unexpected winds. The guy was brilliant, spoke clearly, led me by the hand until I was happy with my situation, offered a radar information service, vectors to where I wanted to go, confirmed my QNH & height and gave constant updates of my precise position to make sure I knew where I was and where I was going. I had his undivided attention for a good 5 minutes.

My only regret was that I didn't call them sooner, as soon as I had any doubt about my location. Instead I stumbled around for a good few minutes, which was daft.

Having called once, I'd have no hesitation calling if weather started looking tricky and I had safety worries. I have no doubt that if you call them you won't regret it, but best called early rather than late. Great if you're fixed wing - they would be less useful in rotary as once you're in cloud as a non-IR PPL(H), the instability and lack of experience means your life expectancy is probably a small number of minutes (1?). I'm frankly too scared to go anywhere near them.

BW

DFC

1st Jun 2005, 20:39

I just love all the assumptions that people with IRs or IMC ratings will be any better off should the weather descend on a VFR flight.

One of the biggest killers in aviation is VFR flight continued into IMC.

I'll say that again.

One of the biggest killers in aviation is VFR flight continued into IMC.

Did I mention pilot qualifications - No

Did I mention aircraft equipment - No

Repeat after me -

One of the biggest killers in aviation is VFR flight continued into IMC.

Check out the stats. - Many of the aircraft dug into hill sides were well equipped aircraft flown by current experienced IR holders!!!

Basic training impresses us that planning is not simply good Airmanship, it is essential.

Unless one has planned for an IMC flight - do not think that entering IMC will save you because it will probably kill you even if you are an IR holder - check the stats.

If a VFR flight pulls up into IMC, they have lost everything except the posibility of keeping the aircraft right way up for some time.

Ask yourself;

Do you cancel VFR flights if the freezing level is low? - No? but what if you enter IMC can you fly a lump of ice on instruments?

Do you carry IFR charts on VFR flights? - No? but even with an IR or IMC the flight becomes illegal on entering cloud because you do not have the appropriate charts to get to a safe destination for sure. Never mind illegal, think practicalities - how do you naviagte to suitable approach minima!

Do you plan the flight as an IFR flight with appropriate navigation aids and check the IFR notams when completing a VFR flight?

Lots of things to think about.

But I can tell you that in the simulator, 75% of IMC holders in current practice kill themselves going from VFR to IFR flight cause the weather gets bad - why? - more than 1/2 of them forgot to turn on the pitot and lost control after the pressure head iced over during the climb.

Yea call 121.50..........but make it a mayday cause there is a good chance that if you continue VFR into IMC you will not survive.

Better to take your chances with a precautionary landing.

Regards,

DFC

bar shaker

1st Jun 2005, 21:32

DFC I agree with you.

I am not IMC rated and have no intention of ever being so. I spent a couple of hours RHS for a flight to Paris, years ago, the whole lot was in cloud. It wasn't fun and I wish I had spent the time in my local pub. IMC is fine if you need to get there, I fly for the fun and for the thrill of it.

If, during my troubled flight, I had flown on, to the point that I had to either put into somehwere I couldn't see or climb above the cloud, I am not sure what I would have chosen. I hope I would have put down whilst I still had the option of determining somewhere suitable. I was over flat terrain, so the ground was not rushing up to meet me. The SE is, however, notorious for its wires. The other option of going up, may have given me more time, but I would have been met with 100+ mile viz, all of it of cloud. Knowing that the cloud was down to the deck, I would have been biding time until I ran out of fuel and then I would have died.

Calling 121.5 in such a situation could only set up the 999 services, to hopefully pull you out of the wreckage more quickly.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

If you were in a valley, I doubt you would get hold of 121.5.

tonyhalsall

1st Jun 2005, 22:12

PPRuNe
posted 31st May 2005 11:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowering cloud base rising terrain
Whats best way to get out of this? Probably best to put down in a field but assume a lot of pilots would want to "fly" their way out of it. Any opinions? VFR of course!
__________________________________________________

Spring 2003 and I planned a long days flying out to North Wales and around Caenarfon and North Wales.

The leg out was perfect and though the forecast was for deteriorating weather in the mid - late afternoon it was still morning and Caenarfon had CAVOK and a SW'ly breeze.
Refuelled and a great sausage and egg toastie I set off for what I hoped (sic) would be the most interesting part of the trip - the jolly around and over Snowdonia. I was a bit upset to see the clear blue sky of only half an hour ago had now become a high grey sheet of stratus, but the top of Snowdon was still visible so I thought it would be OK.
Anyway, to cut a long story short I ended up near over Betswy Co-ed (something like that) and followed some low ground up a valley back towards Snowdonia - as the valley turned to the right I was met with valley and cloud ahead and only valley to the side - exactly as the first poster described.
I remembered reading an article in the Shadow Owners Club Newsletter describing an almost stall turn like manoevre to extricate oneself from such a situation but of course it was nothing I had ever considered before let alone practised. Looking down and to the sides and it was clear that a forced landing was going to hurt and destroy the aircraft - so I guessed I had nothing to lose but to try the manoevre.
I descended to a point I guessed to be mid way between the ground and the cloud pulled back on the stick until about 45 knots and pressed firmly on the right rudder. Incredibly and without any fuss, drama or stress the aircraft gained about 100' in height and then turned 180 degrees on its own axis and pointed back down the valley from where I had come at exactly the same height as when I started.
I was staggered at the simplicity and ease of the manoevre and how well behaved the whole procedure was.
It was only when I got home and I thought about it later, relived the scene over and over again that I realised just how fortunate I had been. Then again the irony 12 months later when the entire fleet of Shadows was grounded on spurious safety grounds - it had certainly saved my bacon.
Anyway, apologies for not referring to IMC, VMC, IR, VFR or anything like that - it was a day out jolly flight in a basic equipped Shadow microlight and I VERY fortunately managed to extricate myself from quite a nasty predicament. I wouldn't want to do it again though.

tmmorris

2nd Jun 2005, 08:52

DFC,

Do you carry IFR charts on VFR flights? - No? but even with an IR or IMC the flight becomes illegal on entering cloud because you do not have the appropriate charts to get to a safe destination for sure. Never mind illegal, think practicalities - how do you naviagte to suitable approach minima!

Yes, I always have the relevant AIDU FLIPs with IAPs; yes, I always plan my VFR flights with MSA for each leg; I always carry a half-mil chart which has MEF figures for each square; most of my VFR routes use VORs as waypoints when they can; I always have a GPS switched on and the route programmed in; and I'm always outside CAS, and 90% of the time talking to someone who can provide a radar service.

So if I need to go IFR, it's no big drama: climb to MSA; tell the controller I'm now in IMC and need a RIS/RAS; sort out the routing (divert if necessary); get out the approach chart; and get on with it. Again, 95% of the time I re-enter VMC before the approach anyway so make a visual approach. Really not that much of a big deal, as long as you prepared the VFR flight properly.

Of course, if your VFR flight wasn't prepared, you relied on GPS for navigation, you didn't work out MSA, you left the charts at home, and you didn't use your radio at all, you'd be in more trouble; but you'd deserve to be, frankly.

Tim

IO540

2nd Jun 2005, 10:02

DFC please stop acting like the Pope.

You say: I just love all the assumptions that people with IRs or IMC ratings will be any better off should the weather descend on a VFR flight.

Well OBVIOUSLY one would not continue the flight under VFR would one??

People hit terrain because they are too low in relation to the terrain. This may sound obvious but let me repeat it as it is quite important: people hit terrain because they are too low in relation to the terrain.

Subject to the 0C level being above the MSA, one would climb to/above the MSA and continue the flight under IFR. This may involve a change of destination. But it's a lot safer than slowing to 70kt and wallowing between hills under a lowering cloudbase, and hoping that 121.50 will work down between those hills (the coverage isn't specified below something like 2000ft over most of the UK - don't recall where but there is a CAA doc describing it).

And yes this does mean that one cannot embark on a VFR flight if the 0C level is below the MSA, unless the weather is practically guaranteed to be VMC al the way.

All the other IFR stuff applies too: a suitable aircraft, adequate currency, carrying the approach plates for every likely destination, etc.

I have no intention of taking the mick here but if someone writes

"Tyres all kicked, I took off. I couldn't see a bloody thing and flew a circuit back in."

then I think any talk of an IFR option is going to be rather wasted. Someone getting into that ought to learn basic weather checks before flying.

bar shaker

2nd Jun 2005, 21:01

IO

Let me explain, before you portray me as worse than I was on the day.

From the ground, I could see for miles. Above me, all I could see was blue sky.

Between 300ft and 750ft was a layer of thin fog. In it, I could see the ground for about a mile/mile and a half ahead. Above the layer, I could see for 20 miles but could see less ground. EGMC's TAF was 6000.

When I say I couldn't see a bloody thing, I didn't mean I was in IMC, what I meant was I was in VFR but at much less than I was happy with.

I posted a frank report of a mistake I made and discussed the factors that led me to make the mistake.

If you feel I need ridiculing for it, then I look forward to meeting you, face to face. In fact you have made me so angry that I eagerly look forward to it.

Maybe my tale will help someone else less full of themselves from making the same mistake.

tonyhalsall

2nd Jun 2005, 21:52

Bar Shaker,
It was a good story and it was thought provoking and all but the most anal of readers would have taken on board the essence of what you said.
Unfortunately most flying bulletin boards are frequented by people who impose their holier than though attitude at the first opportunity - it is one reason I have stopped posting on anything other than things which are really close to my heart.
Don't worry about the poster who ridiculed a part of your post by taking it completely out of context, the vast majority of readers know exactly what you mean't.
Read back through this entire thread and look how many posts referred to the original thread and how many were crtiticisms of other peoples comments.
Chin up - Here's hoping your next flying day is blessed with fluffy cumulus and gentle zephyrs. Keep The Faith, Keep flying whilst others just talk about it!!
Tony :-)

Flyin'Dutch'

2nd Jun 2005, 21:55

DFC,

You are talking rubbish.

There is no evidence that those that crash in CFIT accidents are IMC or IR holders.

IO540

3rd Jun 2005, 09:01

BS

Unfortunately this is the internet, not a table in a pub, so if you write XYZ you must expect somebody to read XYZ. I also did say I didn't intend to take the micky.

You wrote that you couldn't see a bloody thing; that doesn't sound like VFR to me. VFR is anything over 3000m vis, or 1500m if you have an IMCR or an IR.

Kolibear

3rd Jun 2005, 09:39

Oh come IO, you know as well anyone else that what people write on here isn't necessarily what they mean, bs was just indulging in shorthand and exaggeration.

Flippancy does not translate well into the written word, I know this too well having been told off on more than occasion for what have appeared to be light hearted comment on serious subjects.

bs said that 'he kicked the tyres', meaning 'I did all my pre-flight checks'. Now I think thats a fairly large clue as to the mood of his post. And most of us have been flying VFR in weather when we couldn't 'see a bloody thing' - under clear blue skies but looking into the sun maybe.
Tyres all kicked, I took off. I couldn't see a bloody thing and flew a circuit back in."
sounds like a succinct description of a typical winter flight, where the weather looks 50/50.

bar shaker

3rd Jun 2005, 12:58

IO

Thinking about it, I should have guessed someone would read something into it.

Tony and KB, I'm glad you got the gist of it :)

The thing is that this happened 150 hours ago, albeit only 14 months ago and since I have missed out on some good flying as I am always paranoid of getting in the same situation and finding I don't have the option of a 180 back to better weather. I know that erring on the side of caution is never a bad thing, but feel I am often being too conservative.

The human factors associated with flying with a much more experienced pilot have probably contributed to other wrong decisions or even lack of decisions, over the years.

IO540

3rd Jun 2005, 13:30

This does happen to me too. Whenever I have an instructor with me, I mess up everything. On the rare occassions I get a chance to fly with someone who has more experience than me on the (not very common) type I fly, I mess up then also.

DFC

3rd Jun 2005, 22:37

tmmoris,

I think what you are saying is that you as an IMC or IR holder plan every flight as an IFR flight, you always fly above the IFR MSA and if you can complete the flight in VMC and under VFR then that is great, if you have to fly IFR and in IMC, you have planned for and are prepared for that. That would not come into the category of VFR flight continued into IMC because you are effectively operating to the IFR rules at all times.

--------

IO540,

People hit terrain because they are too low in relation to the terrain. This may sound obvious but let me repeat it as it is quite important: people hit terrain because they are too low in relation to the terrain.

Many VFR into IMC flights hit terrain because the pilot looses control of the aircraft above the MSA and hits the ground while still in IMC or very quickly after exiting IMC (in 1 or more bits).

The increase in workload having pulled up into IMC can be very distracting and can reduce the average part time amateur instrument pilot's ability to keep the aircraft flying especially if they can't break out on top within 3000ft of entering IMC.

In many cases however, the pilot does not pull up, they accidentally enter IMC and then know that they are too low to descend so thay have to climb. This can often happen when the aircraft is in a slight climbing turn.......the worst way to go IMC unexpectidely and the best way to give oneself the leans!

Of course, the question that no one has asked yet is........going down that valley, can the aircraft out climb the terrain or will it hit the unmarked 299ft mast on the ridge?

Regards,

DFC

RatherBeFlying

3rd Jun 2005, 22:46

First of all, do not be going up any valley you can't turn around in.

In a C-172, my mimimum altitude is 700' AGL.

I had to do an 180 on the AH when I suddenly discovered that a cloud base may slope:uhoh:

The IFR rating and flat terrain added confidence, but I prefer to avoid any such surprises:)

Whirlybird

4th Jun 2005, 09:18

bar shaker,

Tyres all kicked, I took off. I couldn't see a bloody thing and flew a circuit back in."

Nicely put! I knew exactly what you meant. We're pilots here; you didn't need to say, "I carefully did all my preflight checks, then taxied out, doing my taxiiing checks as I did so. I called the tower, wrote down all that they said, then I lined up on runway XX. When I took off I climbed to 500 ft as usual, then levelled off and at this point I realised that the visibility was down to.... (Yawn, yawn, yawn)

You made the point; it was perfectly clear; nice turn of phrase. May I steal it for an article some day please?

Unfortunately, however, this is PPRuNe. :( I sometimes wonder if some people on here lie in wait, looking for a reason to attack. :eek: Since some of them seem to, I'm now more careful about what I write. It's a shame one has to be, but there it is. :(

bar shaker

4th Jun 2005, 10:59

Whirly wrote:

May I steal it for an article some day please?

LOL, be my guest :) :)

englishal

4th Jun 2005, 17:14

DFC,

You do talks some dramatic crap sometimes.

Suggesting that a current IMC or IR holder is more likely to end it in the poo by climbing into IMC than making a precautionary landing is rubbish frankly. If you are correct, then we may as well take all IMC ratings off their owners and stick them in the bin.

Have you never asked for a pop-up IFR clearance? No I guess not. I have many times, and I have yet to kill myself.

Scud running at 900' just below the cloud with antenna up to 2000' around you is far more scary than sitting comfortably at FL45 planning your strategy.

I plan my flights VFR, but also alow for the fact that may have to go IFR for one reason or another. Its no big deal, really.....

The last precautionary landing I read about was carried out perfectly. The next day when the chief pilot came to retrieve the plane, he wrote it off by hitting a fence.....

ta ta

;)

Fuji Abound

4th Jun 2005, 21:41

Englishal

Well said!

My last flight was throught the solent zone and then north to a private strip.

It started with a bid of scud running along the coast but I didnt fancy the lowering base north through the solent zone. The guys there kindly allowed me a circling climb offshore in IMC to reach mca, continue up to 4,500 in IMC and route north through their zone. By the time I was near where I wanted to be the undercast had sufficient holes to allow a safe descent with a RIS as there was no approach. On balance I was far happier IMC at a comfortable height given that from an earlier report I expected to find broken cover at the strip. My friend continued north VFR and was down around 500 feet for a short while, not that it was a problem and in any event he had no alternative as his aircraft was not IFR equipted. However I would always far rather start my climb knowing precisely what was ahead and would certainly as Englishal says be much happier in IMC than struggling on VMC.

Of course whether you have an IMC or IR rating you are only as good as you are current.

DFC

5th Jun 2005, 18:10

englishal,

DFC,

You do talks some dramatic crap sometimes.

Fuji Abound,

Well said!

A bit dramatic perhaps but crap?..............here is a quote from AOPA;

The number-one cause of weather-related accidents is continued VFR flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). A full quarter of these pilots are instrument-rated. The rate and severity of accidents classified as VFR-into-IMC haven't changed much since the mid-1970s, nor have the causal factors, according to a study by the University of Illinois published earlier this year. The aviation community hasn't had much success discouraging pilots from flying into weather for which they are neither equipped nor prepared. The distinguishing hallmark of a VFR-into-IMC accident is its devastating hand. Roughly 75 percent of these accidents are fatal, because they typically involve a loss of control that starts relatively soon after the airplane enters the clouds.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2001/ounce0110.html

Of course ignoring information like that is why things are not changing.

There is nothing with planning ahead and being prepared to go IFR at some stage during the flight but that decision is made at the planning stage, not in the air.

Regards,

DFC

Fuji Abound

5th Jun 2005, 21:49

"There is nothing with planning ahead and being prepared to go IFR at some stage during the flight but that decision is made at the planning stage, not in the air."

That is just about the most sweeping conclusion I have ever seen.

Even more sweeping is the tenuous way you assoicate that with the AOPA quote.

The AOPA qutoe tells us that some instrument rated pilots were sadly not very good at making the transition from VMC to IMC. That is why I said an instrument rated pilot is only as good as he is current. The AOPA quote tells us that most of these accidents start relatively soon after the pilot enters cloud. NOT, my emphasis, during the unplanned instrument approach which could be the logical conclusion of the unexpected transition form VMC to IMC. Well I struggle to see how those same pilots would have faired any better had they planned the transition on the ground. I am also left wondering how many of those pilots, if they had struggled on in VMC would have also lost their lives.

My point, as I think was Englisal's, was that for a CURRENT instrument rated pilot, it is likely to be far safer transitioning to IMC and climbing to the MSA than struggling on in detiorating VMC until you end up having to make the transition from an unacceptably low height (below MSA) not knowing what is ahead.

Of course you are correct it is better to plan for an IFR flight when still on the ground. That is not the issue. The issue I think was you are unexpectedly (for whatever the reason) caught out in a lowering overcast and perhaps cant back track (again for whatever reason) - in this case what do you do if you are a CURRENT instrument rated pilot.

Are you seriously suggesting a CURRENT instrument rated pilot is incapable of transitioning unexpectedly form VMC to IMC? Are you suggesting a CURRENT instrument rated pilot would be better staying below a 500 foot overcast than climbing IMC to the MSA if those were the conditions he happened to encounter?

Sunfish

6th Jun 2005, 07:37

I have a sneeking suspicion that many of those posting here have, like myself, never expereinced VFR into IMC.

The chances of a VFR pilot controlling an aircraft for more than two minutes, let alone avoiding terrain in such circumstances is only 25%.

The correct response I've been taught when faced with such a situation is "never put yourself in such a situation".

Against the day one does, I was shown how to do 180 degree steep turns at 500 feet at about 85 knots to keep things tight. But then of course the weather may have silently closed the back door anyway.

IO540

6th Jun 2005, 09:26

One does wonder why anyone bothers to write anything in these forums. Participation in a web-based forum is very time consuming. The audience seems pretty small, but it probably isn't and I am sure that is why people here do come in to counter what they see as rubbish written by someone else.

I think picking on individuals is very poor practice but looking at what DFC writes I have to say that the really interesting thing would be to find out what sort of flying he actually does.

Looking at what he writes, he could be a keen GA follower who just reads the mags and has never actually flown. One can develop a lot of knowledge, easily enough to pass as a PPL instructor, this way.

He could be an old boy who flies some vintage type, daylight VMC only, reads every piece of paper emanating from the CAA, attends every CAA safety meeting and gets his logbook duly stamped at each one, and flies perhaps 10 hours a year.

At a real stretch, he could be an airline pilot who entered the profession (probably many years ago) via a direct airline pilot course thus avoiding any GA flying. I know airline pilots like that, and the thought of UK-style IFR flight (taking off into OVC005, flying in IMC or on top, then doing a DIY letdown 10 miles from the non-IAP destination with a GPS/VOR/DME or a radar assisted position fix) totally scares them. In fact I bet > 50% of them would disapprove. But that's life outside controlled airspace, in a country with grass airfields without IAPs.

He certainly doesn't do real-world flying from A to B in UK or Europe.

As Englishal and Fuji rightly say there is zero evidence that a transition to IFR (assuming the pilot is current on instrument flight, etc) is less safe than staying below the cloud and perhaps doing a prec landing.

The last straw DFC tries to grab hold of is whether the transition to IFR was pre-planned on the ground. Unless one is a long way down between hills/mountains, climbing straight ahead to the MSA is entirely safe, so that one doesn't wash either. And most pilots with instrument training will tend to plan flights at/above the MSA anyway, so IMC is a non-issue. It is only at the destination that things get tricky but that's a separate matter.

tonyhalsall

6th Jun 2005, 09:57

But just how far off track has this thread gone???

Where did IFR flying, transitioning from VFR to IMC ever come into it?

The original poster asked what people might do in VFR conditions caught in the rising ground (sorry - can't use word 'terrain') lowering cloud scenario.

Presumably the original poster, like myself, believes that very few Private Pilots have instrument ratings and therefore that option is a non starter. He was looking for real life practical advice as to how to extricate himself from the predicament.

It would make an interesting poll to see how many of the regular posters have an IR or IMC rating and how many are straightforward low time PPL's who fly as a hobby, purely for fun.

Tony

Fuji Abound

6th Jun 2005, 10:46

For some reasons I have been thinking about these posts regarding transitioning form VMC to IMC.

As both instrument rated pilots and non instrument rated pilots read these threads I think it is important to try and give a balanced view.

In my opinion if you intend to fly regularly over distance in the UK and Europe an instrument rating is a really good thing to have.

With the rating and GOOD CURRENCY flying in IMC is what we do and we do it very safely. Not only do we do it but we do it often because that is the sort of weather we have most of the time.

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 unless the aircraft is properly equipped and the pilot REALLY CURRENT.

At the other extreme in my opinion transitioning through a high overcast to VMC with a 1000 or two of IMC and with a solid TAF at the destination (planned or unplanned) when, as is so typical visibility below the overcast is poor in haze, should be bread and butter to an instrument rated pilot - we do it all the time. The reason we do it is because we can conduct the flight far more safely and indeed enjoyably "on top".

Of course there are all sorts of permutations in between and all sorts of potential risks. Yes the METAR might end up being far worse at your destination than the TAF suggested and you might need to do an instrument approach to minimum, yes the AI might unexpectedly pack up on you etc., AND that means you need the training, currency and experience to assess the situation.

HOWEVER you should not be put off getting and using an instrument rating - it will add to your safety greatly. Yep we have all read about the study of the bunch of non instrument rated pilots who were taken into simulated IMC - the outcome was not surprisingly poor! 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. I accept that some of these might struggle if they then had to continue in IMC ending up with an instrument approach in IMC at a destination for which they did not have the plates - but I bet these would be the first to admit they weren’t really current.

I gave one recent example - it is what actually happens in the real world. On departure westbound the base was around 1,800 - not too bad. Viz beneath was not great - so typical in this country. En route TAFS suggested the base would come down to 1,000 but a local report from the destination strip suggested the weather was clearing nicely from the West with a broken overcast. The flight started VMC beneath along the coast because by remaining visual there was no need to rely on finding a "hole" at the strip (non published approach). The intention was to fly the whole route VMC. In fact the base came down to around 500 feet en route. A climb in IMC was initiated with a RIS. I was far happier above the MSA in IMC than fiddling around trying to spot masts at 500 feet. There was no risk of freezing, no CBs forecast and I knew (because I asked) the tops were at 4,500. When I got to the strip a let down through some very large "holes" still with a RIS served the job. If the holes had not been there I knew of an airport close by with an ILS and even if I had not had the plate I knew vectors would have been given. If that had not been an alternative I knew I had sufficient fuel to get back to base and was very familiar with the approaches there. Forgive me for setting that experience out again but it IS typical, we do it all the time, and we do it safely. I did not plan the flight IFR but by making the transition to IFR the flight was able to continue safely rather than perhaps returning straight to base. It means we can fly more safely and IMHO it should not be suggested otherwise because you WILL be a better pilot if you go out and get an instrument rating and use it.

Final thought I know many have no interest in flying in less than ideal conditions and / or do not have an instrument platform available. That is fine - long may they continue. I simply believe it is wrong to be put off getting an instrument rating by opinions expressed that do not reflect there real world application or the real world risk involved.

TONYHALLS - yep, sorry it has gone off thread but posts here typically do that and the debate is often as interesting in consequence.

I think most of us would agree that without an instrument rating transitioning into IMC is a killer - dont do it. That means any other alterantive is better. If you can back track do so, if you can continue low level at minimium safe speed - do so. If you cant do any of those things you are better off making a precutionary landing. IMHO pilots should practice flying low level when possible - we dont do much of it.

G SXTY

6th Jun 2005, 11:08

I asked a very similar question a couple of years back:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=89539

My (probably rather naive) instinct was to climb to MSA, concentrate on straight and level and declare a mayday. As a lot of people have already pointed out, this is extremely risky without an instrument qualification.

The consensus of opinion was that it’s better to stick it down in a field and risk a low speed prang than climb into the unknown, where it would take all of your capacity just to maintain wings level.

mm_flynn

6th Jun 2005, 13:05

IO 540's comments of IFR operations in UK vs USA is very relevant to the AOPA quote.

In the US there is a very clear line between IMC and VMC flying.

If it is not VMC (i.e. 3 miles and 500 feet below cloud - generally meaning at least a 1000 ft cloud base then you are IFR and you must be in receipt of an ATC clearance.

In the UK in you just become IFR (and still wind up flying with the VFR chart because you can't go airways and you don't have a clearance).

I think this leads some IR rated pilots in the States to sometimes push on in reduced conditions trying to avoid going into cloud and then they unexpectedly loose visual contact close to the ground and are a statistic.

I am not aware of any significant risk with current IR/IMC pilots being confronted with declining weather and making a reasoned decision to transition to IFR - The risk is trying to fly visually in declining visibility. In fact, as Fuji Abound has so well articulated, this transition from VFR to IFR is a common feature of UK IMC flying.

Aussie Andy

6th Jun 2005, 15:16

Hi Fuji Abound, good post. As a very recently qualified IMC rating holder I really enjoyed your last post which sets out a scenario I would like to aim to be current with, and which seems to be balanced in terms of risks etc. At the end of the day, as PIC we all have to judge the balance of conditions versus equipment, experience and currency for every flight.

Andy :ok:

englishal

6th Jun 2005, 17:16

I agree that a non-instrument qualified pilot (by that I mean IMC / IR) would be wise to do everything in their power to remain out of the cloud.

It may well be that IR'd / IMC pilots end up dead as well as DFC points out, but I suspect (and this is the crux) that they were not current.

It is also true to say that current IR'd pilots die in CFITs .....but this tends to be during the approach / departure phase rather than just spiraling out of the clouds. Either that or due to equipment failures (i.e. combination of events).

EA

DFC

7th Jun 2005, 12:32

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

S-Works

7th Jun 2005, 13:13

DFC, you talk a load of codswallop at times.

:p

englishal

7th Jun 2005, 13:28

The BS is flowing now ;)

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!

I really cannot believe you suggest that a current Instrument pilot should declare an emergency or make a precautionary landing in a field if they are going to have to enter IMC?

I fail to see how being a PPL has anything to do with it? I'm a PPL in JAR land, and a Commercial Pilot in FAA land. A CPL without an IR or IMC has no better odds of surviving than a PPL in unintened entry into IMC.....?

I'm sorry DFC, everyone is entitled to their view and all that, but you seem to have some very strange views for an experienced pilot? What is you day job that allows you to fly IFR all the time?

Ta ta

Fuji Abound

7th Jun 2005, 15:15

"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?"

I dont mean to be personal but it is difficult to have a constructive discussion if you dont want to read what is said. It still seems to be quite clear that I was not talking about setting off into a 500 foot overcast in isolation. I was considering a combination of factors that would make an IFR sector very tough even for an experienced pilot. In fact, and if there is any risk you are a commercial pilot with not a lot of SEP IR time, way above your ability to cope even if you had planned for it - and that is a constructive comment because I have had CURRENT high hours commercial pilots fly in a SEP IMC without an auto pilot and found the going very tough - and before you say it, that is why I have consistently said you must be SEP CURRENT.

"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."

Is that another sound bite? Where do they say instrument rated pilots should not transition VFR to IFR. In fact I am even more sceptical because I suspect they would say "transition from VMC to IMC" since transitioning from VFR to IFR may mark no change what so ever in the met conditions.

"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!"

One suspects the reason why an increase in the instrument time for a PPL was introduced in the syllabus was because the CAA felt a pilot would be better able to cope with certain conditions. A different skill - yes, a more skilled pilot -definitely yes, therefore a more skilled pilot, ???????

"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?"

I dont know - please enlighten us.

"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!"

I am a great believer in actually reading the research that was done. Unless I have missed something the researchers did NOT take a bunch of SEP CURRENT IR pilots.

"even if it will make your flight illegal?"

Now that really does take the biscuit. I dont mind people being rude or simply not knowing what they are talking about - all part of the fun on these forums but I do worry about the suggestion of doing something illegal. Please enlighten all of us?

As I said previously I have learned a great deal from this forum. As a new pilot it gave me much encouragement to do things like take on an enjoy instrument flying. Yep, I would be the first to accept the risks of instrument flying are greater than flying in good VMC but then so is flying a greater risk than driving your car. Flying is risk management at its best. Yep, as a very old and wise pilot once told me there is only one thing better than four engines and that is five.

However because of what I have gained from this forum I cannot accept postings that give such an unbalanced point of view and far more importantly appear to be supported by quotes taken out of context. That only discourages other new pilots from for example gaining an instrument rating - which IMHO is a very bad thing.

Constructively tell me I am wrong by all means, tell us of your own experience and we can have an interesting debate.

WR - I think on the whole we do respect each others opinions and certainly should. However as I have tried to explain opinions which are supported by research or information misquoted is dangerous as are unsupported suggestions we are behaving illegally.

I wholly take your other points and as I said before I respect any pilot who prefers never to fly on instruments for whatever reason. Frankly, as much as I enjoy instrument flying, I would far rather watch the scenery go by if I had to chose only one or the other.

Finally to stick my neck out if I were a CURRENT IR pilot I can think of very very few situations I would not climb IMC to the MSA in the circumstances you describe. One would be a serious risk of icing, another a risk of embedded CB's and the last not knowing what was ahead before I reached MSA. The first two I would want to know about before I ever set off and I would like to think I definitely would not have gone if either were a risk and I even might have to go IMC. That only therefore leaves the third - which is a problem as you say only resolvable at the time.

tonyhalsall

7th Jun 2005, 15:32

Perhaps the answer is to make an IR mandatory for a UK PPL??

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

Come on - most of us bimble around VFR quite happily and thank our lucky stars when once in a hundred or so hours or so we make a mistake and scrape our way out of it.

Getting an IR would bankrupt me and simply remove the pleasure I get from tootling above the English countryside in generally fair weather, not talking to anyone, not tracking any VOR's and not getting stressed out with overly complex systems and procedures. If the cloud comes down I curse myself and turn back from where I came.

Only on two occasions have I allowed myself to get into a situation where an IMC/IR rating would have extricated myself - but I got out anyway with little drama and only lightly soiled underwear.

Give me gentle zephyrs and fluffy cumulus any day. Perhaps there should be a section for us 'Sunday, fair weather flyers'

IO540

7th Jun 2005, 15:50

The reason people are having a go at DFC is because his view of a particular area of flying (pilots with current instrument skills, and using them) bears no relation to reality.

It's a bit like going to a CAA safety meeting. A mere mention of the dreaded 3-letter words (GPS or IFR) gets people hissing at you. Those meetings are aimed at very low hour VFR-only pilots, which is fair enough because they form undoubtedly the biggest single group in UK GA and they do keep having daft and easily avoidable incidents.

The problem is when people who preach that stuff refuse to accept that there is another group of pilots who have long since moved on.

I don't know why. Maybe they regard them as a threat of some sort?

It's possible, at a price, to get a plane that's well equipped, and it's possible to get trained up and with the application of some more money and time one can stay current with all that. But the old hands have a problem coming to grips with this. So we have for example the CAA "safety" leaflet #25 which contains mostly complete bull. This is largely why the bulk of GA is still firmly back in the 1960s rut and is gradually sinking deeper and deeper into it. The flying schools are losing students all the time; it's no wonder they are lobbying the CAA to hit the FAA option. A whole lot of good that would do; killing off the one group of pilots who have put in the time and money to get good machines and who stay current in them.

Here in the UK we have the IMC Rating which was an astonishingly imaginative and brilliant piece of progress, which I am certain nobody could bring in today. It has its faults; chiefly that the minimum training required is well behind its legal privileges, but one could say the same for the PPL and I doubt anybody wants to go down that road :O A lot of IMCR holders are like most PPL holders: skint and doing too few hours, yet the traditionalists are slagging off the IMCR when really they should be asking why are people doing so few hours. A part of the answer is that one cannot get one's hands on a suitable plane unless one buys one or buys into one. But no IMCR instructor is going to tell you that!

Outside the UK, nothing short of a full IR is any good for serious flying, unless one is where the weather is nice, or in say the USA where one can fly VFR up to 17999ft.

A lot of the old timers that administer GA policy are quite old fashioned, and that's why there is this struggle around getting and maintaining European IFR privileges.

There is never likely to be a problem flying around VFR; that's a long accepted institution which, apart from local restrictions, is never likely to go away.

It's IFR flight that a lot of traditionalists have a problem with. This is what we see in this thread.

Mike Cross

7th Jun 2005, 16:01

If I can add my two-penn'orth.

It is IMHO a GOOD THING for the required amount of training in order to achieve a rating or indeed a licence to be kept to the minimum. The level of training should be that which is necessary to demonstrate that you are safe enough to be let loose on your own, not necessarily a level that demonstrates a high degree of competency.

If you are safe enough to be let loose on your own you will have a keen sense of when it is not sensible to do something, even though it may well be entirely legal and within the privileges of your license and ratings.

Unfortunately we seem to have rather too many people concentrating on what is legal rather than what is sensible.

englishal

7th Jun 2005, 16:01

Nothing wrong with VFR flying at all, its great fun for bimbling. And for the VFR only pilot the views expressed here are fine.

The reason several of us were anti the views expressed by DFC is that if you happen to have a skill, and can use it, then use it.

Making a precautionary landing if you don't need to in my opinion is far more of a risk, and opens a whole new can of worms. You may cock it up and break your plane, you may injure people, you may damage property, you may p*ss people off (i.e. the land owner).......You may make a fine landing, wait until good weather and then kill yourself on take off.

If you DON'T have to land, then don't. If you DO then DO, and don't worry about the consequences. A current IRd pilot SHOULDN'T have to land in a situation like this. If they do then I suppose their instrument training is questionable, at best.

Fuji Abound

7th Jun 2005, 18:38

"Perhaps there should be a section for us 'Sunday, fair weather flyers"

Definitely not!

I suspect most of us prefer being fair weather flyers.

I think we are just getting hot under the collar because DFC is suggesting the alternative we have put forward for an instrument rated pilot is in fact not a safe alternative. In fact he may even being saying it is highly irresponsible and illegal

IMHO he is simply wrong!

Long may we all be fair weather pilots.

foxmoth

7th Jun 2005, 19:12

even if it will make your flight illegal?
Nothing here will make your flight illegal if you have got caught out in a flight that you have taken reasonable precautions for (eg. getting met which thens turns out wrong!). Can't remember the exact wording and don't have the book to hand but the law basically states you can break any of the rules if you need to in order to be safe.:=

DFC

8th Jun 2005, 00:07

I fail to see how being a PPL has anything to do with it?

You are quite correct and I might add that there is a large number of PPLs out there that I would have far more faith in should they be in a difficult situation than some CPL or even "ATPL" holders that I have come across.

Perhaps I should have said Private Operators......because Commercial Operators would be bound by their Ops manual and thus (hopefully) would have clearly defined limits.

"even if it will make your flight illegal?"

Now that really does take the biscuit. I dont mind people being rude or simply not knowing what they are talking about - all part of the fun on these forums but I do worry about the suggestion of doing something illegal. Please enlighten all of us?

The ANO requires a pilot not to depart unless the flight can be completed as planned......if you plan a VFR flight then you can not legally depart unless you are (as much as possible) sure that the flight can be completed VFR.

To do otherwise would be akin to departing in a twin where you had good reason to suspect that one engine would fail during the flight but departed anyway and when the engine failed 10 minutes after departure took that beast to an airfield and hailed how good a pilot you were at flying a twin on one engine!

One suspects the reason why an increase in the instrument time for a PPL was introduced in the syllabus was because the CAA felt a pilot would be better able to cope with certain conditions. A different skill - yes, a more skilled pilot -definitely yes, therefore a more skilled pilot, ???????

No the instrument requirement to be able to complete a 180 degree turn in IMC is simply to try and reduce the casualty rate. Even the Cessna manuals had instructions on how to do a 180 and get back to safety! They are no different a PPL than a PPL trained in an ICAO region where the instrument requirement is less.........unless you think that they think that they can better fly in cloud should the situation occur.....where everyone would say that actually they are worse cause they are overconfident and too willing to operate in conditions that could cause unexpected risks and dangers.

I am a great believer in actually reading the research that was done. Unless I have missed something the researchers did NOT take a bunch of SEP CURRENT IR pilots

Ok most of them were ME/IR pilots but all were what they in an aftermath questionaire regarded as "current" i.e. they were legal and stated that they would depart tomorrow on an IFR flight in IMC from start to end. However, the important element is that they were given a simple VFR flight to complete and unexpectedly had to go IFR. We did the thing as a bit of fun and a "let's see what happens" but the results were dreadfull.

Perhaps IO540 was one of the people who crashed and burned and that is why he makes personal attacks when things come a little close to home? :D

As I said previously I have learned a great deal from this forum. As a new pilot it gave me much encouragement to do things like take on an enjoy instrument flying. Yep, I would be the first to accept the risks of instrument flying are greater than flying in good VMC but then so is flying a greater risk than driving your car. Flying is risk management at its best...................However because of what I have gained from this forum I cannot accept postings that give such an unbalanced point of view

Since this forum is about 20 years old out of 100 years of flight that we have to learn from and I have been "zooming round" for more than half of aviation's history and have yet to kill myself, we have obviously vastly different experiences and I would be at pains to point out that everyone has free choice to do what they want to do and say what they want to say. However there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are very few old bold pilots.

Again I say that if one of the most respected operators in Class G airspace with all their skill and resources (the RAF) treat going from visual contact to IFR unplanned as such a fuss then should the little operators not take a little guidance from the professionals who share their airspace and weather?

As for a "balanced argument"......an opinion you disagree with only unbalances the argument when you can not counter such an argument. :)

-------

Perhaps the answer is to make an IR mandatory for a UK PPL??

Nice idea but the political situation prevents it. Look at the political reasons why we have an IMC rating. How else can the CAA give some form of instrument privileges to pilots while at the same time ensure that such pilots do not take up any of the valuable slots that are available in the ATC airway system.....................Imagine the situation if like say France, most of the airspace below FL115 was class E or even D and every IMC rated pilot called London Control for an IFR clearance from say Leeds to Bournemouth via the airways insted of the current situation wher such pilots fly outside the ATS system and make no dent on ATC perfoemance targets.

Outside the UK, nothing short of a full IR is any good for serious flying, unless one is where the weather is nice, or in say the USA where one can fly VFR up to 17999ft

One can simply cross the UK FIR boundary and fly VFR within controlled airspace up to FL199. No big deal there so why corss the Atlantic? More importantly, the UK is the only country in the world to have such a rating......now if it is such a good idea then how come in 20+years not a single country has agreed with the UK - even those who share it's climate? The UK may have the singular view that an IMC rating is good but does that make it wrong when the rest of the world says no?

So we have for example the CAA "safety" leaflet #25 which contains mostly complete bull.

Have you told the CAA what you think of it's safety initiative? If not then you should.

There is a thred on here about a pilot who may have infringed Southampton airspace because they did not understand the problems with tracking a VOR and not using visual cross-reference on a VFR flight...........imagine that pilot going IMC.....if they can't navigate VFR then how the heck are they going to save themselves IFR. Imagine the situation if they can't get an ATC service!

Perhaps IO540 is an extremely good aviator. I would not class myself in that category. I would prefer to say that I was a survivor, have learned from experience and that regardless of how many decades I have been round, I will still (hopefully) learn some more before I obtain feathers.

--------

Nothing here will make your flight illegal

Hows about;

Not ensuring that the flight can be completed as planned;

Not having appropriate charts for the intended flight; and when it's al over

Failing to report a circumstance when the regulations were breached for the purpose of saving life.

I don't know how much flying people on here have done or where they are based but if one flyies south of say Birmingham and East of Bristol from what I have seen, one is never more than 5nm from an airfield where most GA types can land. Add to that the number of Grass foelds that are often better than some of the smaller strips then there is no reason why a precautionary landing can not be made safely.

Forget the arguments about damaging the aircraft flying it out. If there is any doubt about getting it out safely then take it home on a trailer..............oh but the expense - I can hear the cries.......money before safety?

Regards,

DFC

I think that I should put an explanation here to a comment I made in my last post that is very relevant;

Not ensuring that the flight can be completed as planned

The ANO Article 43;

The commander of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall reasonably
satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information
available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and
forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in
case the flight cannot be completed as planned;

I and most of the people I know interpret that as meaning if you are planning a VFR flight then the weather must be suitable for a VFR flight and one can not depart on such a flight unless that is the case. Yes one can plan for an IFR diversion should conditions not be as expected but overall, the flight only departs when the pilot reasonably expects to fly VFR to destination.

If the flight is IFR from start to finish then the same rule applies and the weather must be suitable. IR rated pilots will know how the ruless affect departure if the destination weather is below minima.

If the flight is planned as say VFR from departure to a certain point and then IFR and perhaps then VFR again closer to destination then the pre-flight planning must support this course of action and the decision to depart must be based on the pilot being in the belief that the flight can be completed as planned.

From the start I have said there is nothing worng with going planned IMC/IFR. It is the unexpected and/or unplanned IMC/IFR that can cause serious dangers regardless of qualifications or abilities.

Hope that clarifies my position!

Regards,

DFC

High Wing Drifter

8th Jun 2005, 07:05

Hi Foxmoth,

Can't remember the exact wording and don't have the book to hand but the law basically states you can break any of the rules if you need to in order to be safe.
Yes, the ANO does provide this lifesaver, but if you have need to break the rules, the CAA must be informed at the earliest opportunity (or words to that effect). I don't imagine the CAA will very relaxed about it.

DFC,

The ANO requires a pilot not to depart unless the flight can be completed as planned......if you plan a VFR flight then you can not legally depart unless you are (as much as possible) sure that the flight can be completed VFR.
The only reference for the requirement of uninterupted VFR is in relation to cancelling IFR flight plans in controlled airspace or license restrictions.

foxmoth

8th Jun 2005, 08:46

Please note that I did add a rider that you need to have done proper planning which then turns sour. If you read my earlier post where I ended up in a farmers field this was exactly the situation I was in there, on this occasion I did not go IFR (was not qualified and current at the time), but if I had done so and then landed safely with ATC help I do not believe the CAA would have had a big problem with it afterwards - and I just because I did not point out that you need to report it does not mean I do not know that, just I believe if you are trying to ensure your safety contacting the CAA afterwards should be a very minor consideration at that time. It seems people here are getting caught up in the detail at times and forgetting the important part - Staying alive, and a lot of what is correct as some have pointed out is individual qualifications/experience and situation .:ooh:

mm_flynn

8th Jun 2005, 11:42

DFC,

I am fascinated (and shocked by) the unexpected VMC into IMC trial that you were party to.

From your post it sounds like the trial was

1 - Take some current ME/IR (maybe some SE/IRs) as well and put them into a simulator with good visuals (sufficient to fly VFR)

2 - Drop them into full IMC with freezing conditions and fail (maybe gradually) the airspeed indicator

3 - watch what happens. (and most of them crash within a few minutes)

If I have outlined the correct scenario I am absolutely astonished that there is such a high level of loss of control from current ME/IR pilots. I would be interested to know more about it and if the issue was the inability of a "typical" IR pilot to shift mental gears into flying on the gauges with out warning or was it more about not being able to deal with flying with an ASI giving misleading information.

The reason I am interested is that when I did my original training a lot of time was spent on simulated system failures and how to recover -even when these were totally unexpectedly never induced a loss of control.

If the problem was more about shifting mental gears - what was it about the experiment that made it so difficult as compared to the routine practice of entering cloud on an IFR flight.

IO540

8th Jun 2005, 18:49

DFC writes

they in an aftermath questionaire regarded as "current" i.e. they were legal and stated that they would depart tomorrow on an IFR flight in IMC from start to end

That doesn't mean they were current, and it doesn't mean they were current on the type which the test was running on.

Which country was this test done in, and how were the subject pilots selected?

Any pilot who isn't an aircraft owner (or part-owner) is VERY unlikely to have any instrument currency. In the UK, the most current instrument pilots (PPL/IR) are FAA, as are their planes, and there is no easy way to trace them and ask them if they would like to participate in a trial.

This result bears no resemblence to anything that a pilot who is current on the type would do. A climb into IMC would be second nature to an instrument pilot. A failed pitot system is obvious because the engine is running and the AI is showing the same thing as before. Not to mention the GS readout on the GPS; practically every IFR pilot uses a GPS.

I do it regularly; it is necessary on the majority of cross country flights regardless of the "plan" being VFR or IFR. The alternative is being stuck between terrain (high terrain en-route isn't unusual, even if the destination is flat) and clouds, messing about 500ft above the ground, not getting any radio service due to the low level (not to mention the ATCO wondering what the hell this idiot is doing, with his Mode C return somewhere way below the MSA), and being among a lot of other low-level traffic which is down there either because they like to be or because they have no option.

Re slagging off the IMC Rating:

It may be true that the IMC Rating enables the UK airways system to work, but equally it is true that the UK airspace system forces the IMC Rating (or something with similar privileges) to be available in the interests of safety. The predominance of Class A at very low levels, the large chunks of Class D which needs a clearance to enter (and which can be refused), mean that some other way had to be found.

In other countries they have different airspace and the IMC Rating isn't as necessary. In France you have lots of Class E and in general one can fly VFR up to FL104; this takes one VMC on top most of the time and the French issued ICAO PPL doesn't have the in sight of surface restriction which the CAA has put into its ICAO PPL. So, the need for a full IR in France isn't a huge deal. Similarly elsewhere. The USA has a very free airspace system in which a VFR pilot can very freely penetrate Class B-E and of course G, up to 17999ft.

In some places e.g. Greece there is so little GA that nobody has really had to think about how it is supposed to work if at all.

So the IMCR is a logical thing to have in the UK. To rip it up would mean ripping up the present airspace structure and rebuild it along the lines of e.g. the USA. There is a good argument for it but nobody has the balls to do it. Of course if they did rip up the IMCR they would need to provide an IR accessible to people that have to work for a living.......

DFC

8th Jun 2005, 20:20

High Wing Drifter,

The reference is the Perflight Action by the commander Article. (Can't remember the number). Basically one must ensure before departure that the flight can be completed as planned. The important thing is that this is required to be decided prior to flight.

That is why I say much more work may need to be done on the area of pre-flight weather understanding rather than having the idea that one can depart anyway and use the IMC option if the weather isn't VMC.

-------

mm_flynn,

Don't be so shocked. There have been airliners with two experienced pilots which crashed because of the pitot and/or static system failing.

Drop them into full IMC with freezing conditions

As a matter of interest, what do you regard as freezing conditions?

-----

IO540,

That doesn't mean they were current

You are spot on there.
However rather than asking them if they were current (which often gets the legal response) we asked if they would happily depart on a flight the next day which was IFR and used the willingness to fly IFR as a measure of what they considdered "current" to mean.

This result bears no resemblence to anything that a pilot who is current on the type would do

Please check out the airliner accident reports regarding blocked static and/or blocked pitot and/or failed primary attitude instruments........even the pros can get it wrong.

Any pilot who isn't an aircraft owner (or part-owner) is VERY unlikely to have any instrument currency

Agree totally and that is why the common mindset for the average pilot pounding round the FIR must be to fly what is planned and if one is really stuck, declare an emergency and take the least risk option - even if that means spending lots of money.

Regards,

DFC

mm_flynn

8th Jun 2005, 21:32

DFC

Although I am aware that sometimes airlines have gone down with surprisingly minor problems and that vacuum and pitot/static problems specifically can be a challenge to deal with in real life - I remain surprised that pulling that kind of emergency on a ME/IR caused a high percentage to loose control. I am assuming these are people who normally would cope well with a simulated instrument failure.

The freezing comment was simply to reflect earlier in the thread where you indicated it was the lack of pitot heat that was the cue to kill the ASI.

I think in support of some of the other comments - this trial indicates a lot more about the pilots ability to handle an instrument failure than the basic task of the transition from VMC to IMC.

Fuji Abound

8th Jun 2005, 21:39

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.

IO540

8th Jun 2005, 22:44

I hope DFC doesn't work for the CAA, otherwise we are all doomed.....

As regards that Boeing that came down after ground maint. taped over the static vents, what happened there beggars belief and IMHO can be explained only by a near total lack of systems knowledge (below PPL level) on the part of the 3rd world crew. What does that tell us? I suppose it tells us that you can fly an airliner, on a regular airliner route, while knowing bugger all about the basics. Irrelevant in this context.

Fuji Abound

8th Jun 2005, 23:41

PS I forgot to deal with the references to the CAA leaflets that were mentioned.

4.7 deals with diversion. To paraphrase if you dont have an IMC OR IR rating and the base falls below 1,000 feet turn back IMMEDIATELY. NOTE - so if you do (have an IMC OR IR rating) presumably you might consider something else. I wonder what?

- perhaps DFC isnt with the CAA after all??

IO540

9th Jun 2005, 08:26

Where does it say that if the base falls below 1000ft one must turn back?

The ANO is the only law, everything else is advisory. It wouldn't suprise me to find some CAA flyer suggesting the above, but it doesn't make sense.

Fuji Abound

9th Jun 2005, 11:50

Safety sense SSL01 - good airmanship. Of course it is not law.

"UNLESS you have an IMC or instrument rating a suitably equipted aircraft and are in current practice and expereinced you must remain in sight of the surface. Before encountering lowering cloudbase or visibility make plans to retreat or divert. If conditions get worse eg 1,000 foot cloudbase or visibility less than 3 K carry out these plans immediately".

It is almost a quote but I couldnt cut and paste from the pdf.

Note the wording that would suggest to me you do certain things if you are not instrument rated but there may be other possibilities if you are subject to the caveats.

The whole section is under the title "diversions".

Whilst we are talking about the CAA it occurs that they could have said "even if you have an IMC or IR if you encounter these conditions and had set out VMC you should carry out these plans immediately (viz turn back) and not risk entering the clouds. (sic because it would be illegal and dangerous to do so).

Miserlou

9th Jun 2005, 14:39

Personally, I can't see what is so controversial about DFC's point of view.

I fly IFR every working day but still appreciate the danger of the transition from VMC to IMC in a single-engined piston. It still requires a high work load, even if you have made the conscious decision that you are prepared to do so at the planning stage, coupled with an element of emotional stress be it disapointment, fear or failure.

Strangely enough my last 2 proficiency checks have both involved some flying down to 500'agl (due wx) but my partner in crime and I were both in agreement as to our course of action and we could have gone IFR immediatley if we chose. Indeed, it would have been easier to climb and file IFR but we chose the harder route for practice purposes. The last occasion also showed vividly the effect of drizzle on a not sufficiently clean windshield. The view from the side windows was considerably better.

If I were to find myself in such a situation I would be unlikely to be in a type which was sufficiently equiped to even consider the IMC option.

If I found myself in facing weather which would prevent further progress I would turn back. If you do land, you don't know how long you're going to be sitting in the field hence the earlier poster suggesting a good field with pub at hand.

If, however, I'd been trapped and the way back was suddenly blocked I'd find a field, a blardy good field. Just to throw some contentious material in here, I'd add that any field which is not big enough to take-off from is not big enough to be safely landed in considering that the engine is still functioning normally and I would expect an operator to seek full reimbursement from any pilot who did so.

Weather rarely gets that bad that quickly so there is little excuse for not having time to find a suitable place to land. And if you can use some time to find a suitable field why not find time finding the nearest reachable airfield or gliding site? Many dis-used fields are sitll suitable landing areas.

If you're worried about the surface then I'd like to mention a bush technique. Bounce your wheels down on the ground and make a go-around. Circle and come back to inspect the marks which you may have made. If they are full of water find somewhere higher or another surface to land.

smith

10th Jun 2005, 00:00

Weather rarely gets that bad that quickly

I have seen this phenomena on a couple of occasions, once off the shore in Long Beach, CA and once off the shore in Scotland. Steam suddenly starts rising from the sea and within minutes has drifted over the land, a sea harr I think it is called.

I was playing golf on one occasion and could see the fog coming towards me and could see nothing withn about 2 mins from when I first saw the steam rising from the ocean. I could hear a little plane circling above and for once I was happy to be on the ground.

Miserlou

10th Jun 2005, 07:10

Fairly local phenomena though wouldn't you say?

I have also seen a similar situation which I was actually waiting to occur. A weatherman had told us about the weather situation and warned us that the wind WILL change direction during the afternoon and when it does WILL move this air from the sea to the land and the fog WILL form quickly as it does so.

Although the actual change was fairly quick, it was forecast and we were waiting to see it happen.

One could hardly say that was a situation for which we were unprepared.

Circuit Basher

10th Jun 2005, 07:38

Smith - good point on the haar - I recently spent 3 years in eastern Scotland and the Forth / Tay estuaries could get engulfed in a haar for days at a time and these had a tendency to form with little notice. The haar looks like quite a light layer when you're underneath it, but when you go up through a hole and get on top, it is a pretty uniform stratus which is usually no more than 500 - 1000 ft thick, but conceals the ground very effectively!

Miserlou

10th Jun 2005, 08:51

But it still requires that certain atmospheric conditions are present, all of which can be forecast.
The only uncertainty is precisely when it will occur and that is no excuse to get caught out in it.

Fuji Abound

10th Jun 2005, 11:26

"But it still requires that certain atmospheric conditions are present, all of which can be forecast."

I am glad you said "can".

It is very common along the south coast - my pet theory is it is getting commoner.

It is often forecast - rarely very accurately in terms of time or duration - and often forecast just before or even after it has occurred.

I do agree however no particulay good reason to be caught out by it though as you can see the wall of fog from some distance and are already likely to be above it. If you happened to be routing along the coast I suppose it might well "blow in" around you if you were relatively low level. IMO this would be another very good example of the right occasion to climb above - totally safe because you know it is only a few thousand feet at most, and the weather will remain as predicted north in shore.

Miserlou

10th Jun 2005, 12:22

Getting on top by remaining VMC is a much safer option although still should not be necessary.

I just remembered an incident I overheard a couple of weeks ago.

PA-28 VFR into IMC. We came on frequency when the a/c was already at 1500' and perhaps 10nm from the runway. He was getting vectors to the ILS and they were confirming the frequency. His heading was 280 (the ILS was 269). There were a number of small heading instructions, between 260 and 275 and after a pause he was asked for his current heading.
"Heading now 180!"
My colleague and I stared at each other. We concluded that this was unlikely to end well.
By some miracle it did end in a successful landing as he broke out of cloud at about 700' and got the runway in sight.

Judging from the short radio exchange after his landing I really don't hitnk he understood the gravity of his situation. He asked why he should contact the ATC unit by phone!

Flyin'Dutch'

12th Jun 2005, 21:03

Hey what is 100degrees between friends!?!

M, you can not be serious when you write that you can see DFC's point of view surely.

DFC claimed that IR/IMC rated drivers litter the countryside due to being in the majority in CFIT accidents and furthermore that those rated should make a precautionary landing when they encounter weather!

Not sure what planet DFC operates on, but it seems a different one than the one the rest of us seem to live on.

Miserlou

12th Jun 2005, 22:41

DFC only quoted AOPA's report which shows one quarter of the CFIT accidents to be IMC qualified.
You've got to ask yourself why there are IMC qualified pilots in that group at all.

My experience is that the pressure of going from VMC into IMC when you weren't planning/expecting is not to be dismissed. I'd much rather take-off with 90m RVR, solid IMC all the way and a CAT 2 ILS an hour later.

Scud-running is also quite a strain. It isn't hard to imagine a pilot, after a certain period getting tired and just wanting a way out, not realizing the effort required. In this case, when a 180 is no longer an option, a precautionary landing would still be much the better option. From a human performance point of view, it is a way out and it gives you all the time in the world to work out a new plan.

The situation is much like that of the remaining engine on a twin when one fails. It takes you to the scene of the accident!

If the pilot of the twin used the other engine as a means to extend his glide range but didn't actually expect to or try to FLY on it, we might also so see a drop in multi-engine accidents.

Twins only have two engines because they NEED two. (And depending on the operation, no requirement to be able to climb or fly on one.)

The change can be made safely but one must have a good plan from the start and know how little one can get away with, chart-wise.

Don't discount the scenarios which DFC mentions either. I made a flight a few years ago where I got to 10,000', still IMC and found the trim to be frozen. Just over an hour later, I found that one of the tip-tanks' vents was also iced up and with no aileron trim to help though I was VMC on top by then. Eventually, the tip-tank did transfer it's fuel but the elevator trim meant I was still 10 kts off the speed I wanted to fly at.
Finally, I got to the destination and had to fly a full procedure NDB approach to minimums, worse than forecast weather.

Not quite finally actually. Finally came a week later. One of the fuel tanks had a collapsed rubber cell. I'd landed with a lot less fuel than I thought I'd had and had come too darned close to needing it!
Made me think very hard, that did!

justsomepilot

12th Jun 2005, 22:51

Miserlou, what was the OAT gauge reading when you found the trim frozen?? If you are in freezing conditions, things might freeze up and are more likely to do so on a plane not designed for known icing.

There is so much nonsense written on this forum!

I just hope that anybody that reads it has a 50kg bag of salt, and a big scoop with which to empty it every time they come in here.

Flyin'Dutch'

13th Jun 2005, 06:46

M,

Yes even IMC and IR rated jockeys come to grief in IMC and icing as do twin pilots in twins when they have an engine failure.

The notion though that this means that you should make a precautionary landing upon encountering IMC or best just fly with one engine to start off with is non sense.

Miserlou

13th Jun 2005, 07:20

Justsome,

Things will also freeze if you take a wet aeroplane into sub-zero conditions as I did.

The exposure to icing conditions was less than 5 minutes; I experienced not more than light airframe icing (may have been severe if I had stayed there). The frozen trim was not due to airframe icing but sub-zero air temperature otherwise it would have unfrozen at a similar rate to the rest of the ice on the aeroplane. Trim tabs are on the trailing edge of the surface. You're in a bad way if the ice has water frozen as far back as that.

In answer to your question, the ground level temperature was around +20 C and at 10,000, perhaps -10.

I don't see the where the reference to nonsense comes in. This is very similar to the type of situation to which DFC refers.

The difference in my case was that I was departing a VFR field into a low overcast with quite heavy rain and poor viz and had filed a flight plan where I would go IFR almost immediately. I could go to 13,000' for half an hour if I needed to but could also get back to non-icing conditions (lower level) as quickly as I could get up top. That is to say the rate of climb of the aircraft would not be a factor.

That's the way I planned it, that's the way it went. Didn't actually need to go to 13,000' or descend as 10,000' was riding through the tops and there was no further ice accretion.

The two main lessons are exercise the trim to it's full extent whenever you're going to fly at sub-zero temps (to get as much oil on it as possible), and if there is a fuel discrepancy (and there were three) find out exactly why and do something about it! I put it down to fuel seeping from one tank to another and due to the position of the fuel gauge (in the forward part of the main tank) when in flight, both phenomena which I had observed in the 350 or so hours which I had with this particular aircraft at the time.

You may not have anything to learn but these experiences are very relevant to the discussion.

Fuji Abound

13th Jun 2005, 10:00

I think we should keep this discussion in context.

Operating IMC carries a higher degree of risk than in VMC - period.

The types of IMC flying vary as widely as the conditions. There are a whole range of conditions that potentially increase the risk - icing, embedded CBs, heavy rain, turbulence etc.

IR pilots operate in the range of conditions (some wisley , some less so).

Broad statistics of CFIT accidents without knowing the conditions at the time, the experience and currency of the pilot etc tell us very little. It seems banal to comment that x% of CFIT accidents happen to IR pilots when in theory ALL CFIT accidents should involve instrument rated pilots because non instrument rated pilots should not be in those conditions anyway. I appreciate this is not the reality because non instrument rated pilots may inadvertently find themselves in these conditions. In that eveident the statistics do tell us they are unlikely to perform well.

So come on lets keeps things in proportion. Yes with an IR in the circumstances orginally outlined there may still be very good reasons for not transitioning into IMC - freezing conditions, CBs, rising terrain in the climb etc., and an IR pilot might be better of landing or continuing VFR. Thats an important part of his assessment and I dont think anyone has suggested that simply because the pilot has an IR he ignores other options.

However I still find nothing here to suggest that a curent IR pilot, subject to the aircraft systems working correctly and him not encountering freezing conditions, CBs, or rising terrain, will have many difficulties transitioning IMC and nor do I find any evidence (again subject to the caveats) that he would be safer scud running with rising terrain given the circumstances the orginal poster outlined.

DFC appears to suggest otherwise and I think he is wrong. I also think he is wrong becasue the "evidence" on which he relies does not support his arguement. It may well support other arguements - but not this one.

boomerangben

13th Jun 2005, 10:33

It is interesting to see the tussles between pilots on this thread and shows the differences in training. I suspect that DFC is ex military - certainly his comments reflect my own experience (I am not military but fly with ex military pilots and crew). Military pilots have a much better handle on the risks that flying may present than do civvy pilots. They are also much better at thinking ahead, risk assessing and updating plan b. So in that context I think DFCs comments are valid. I can understand the stance taken by IO540 and one or two others, but reading between the lines, these guys are flying several hundred hours a year and are very current at class G IFR flying. But they are not representative of the average private flyer.

So back to the original post, for the average ppl by far the best option is to recognise the warning signs and turn back early. No IMC, no landing in a field, no fancy aerobatic turns. What is it they say about good pilots? Something about never getting into the position where they have to demonstrate their superior skills.

IO540

13th Jun 2005, 11:19

Boomerangben is right about some of the pilots here, which I why I dislike the blanket comments being made about a transition into IMC being dangerous.

The question is, what is the "average private flyer"? It is a low hour PPL, about 20 hours/year according to one CAA man I spoke to recently. What does this mean for our discussion? Nothing much. A PPL shouldn't be in a cloud in the first place, and if he gets into one he will probably lose it.

Perhaps you meant "average private flyer with an IMCR" or "average private flyer with an IR". I am not trying to be difficult or stupidly pedantic here, but there is no doubt that the average IMCR holder is lapsed! As is the average IR holder! How many of the instructors at your local school, who once had an IR, still have a valid IR? Almost nobody will keep an IR valid unless they fly (or plan to fly) commercially, or fly regularly into Europe and need to be able to do so IFR.

The currency of the average IMCR or IR holder (private ops obviously) is just as piss poor as the currency of the average plain PPL holder. This is because most people that hang in GA today can't afford to do 100-300 hours/year, and they can't afford to buy the nice well equipped plane which is required for safe IFR.

There are IMCR pilots (like myself) who fly IFR anytime, in IMC if necessary, and don't bat an eyelid. The issues are 0C below the MSA, etc. (so the example given with someone's elevator trim freezing is daft; if one climbs into IMC and OAT is < 0C then one can expect this, which is why 0C below the MSA continues to be a planning issue even if VMC is expected en-route) But IMC itself is a total non-event and the VMC/IMC transition might be done 10x in one short flight.

Fuji Abound

13th Jun 2005, 11:54

"There are IMCR pilots (like myself) who fly IFR anytime, in IMC if necessary, and don't bat an eyelid."

But IMC itself is a total non-event and the VMC/IMC transition might be done 10x in one short flight.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make and why I was very careful to say with a CURRENT IR or IMCR.

I think it is wrong and misleading to suggest with a CURRENT IR trasitioning from VMC to IMC is SO dangerous even when the transition is unexpected. I bet nearly everyone who has just passed their IMC could do so safely. Whether they keep up to speed is a different matter - I think we all agree on that point.

The transition whether planned or unplanned is not in itself illegal.

IO540

13th Jun 2005, 19:12

Yes, that's correct.

Miserlou

13th Jun 2005, 21:17

IO540,
There was actually nothing wrong with the planning. With a ground temperature of +20 C and tops forecast at around 10,000 there is very little space to get icing. Unless you find a little convective cell as I did.

There is nothing wrong with having a look as long as your OUTs are in order. Mine were, and I could still go up almost as quickly as I would have gone down, performance-wise.

It's still not the alternating change from VMC to IMC and back when flying IFR. It's the change TO IMC when you wanted to remain VMC that has a higher risk.

IO540

14th Jun 2005, 08:49

Miserlou

With +20C on the ground and the very far from reliable tops forecast on F215 forecasting tops at 10k ft, this means one is very likely to get freezing before one climbs on top. Even the usually useless 2C/1000ft formula says it will be 0C at 10k ft.

The only time I would regard a tops forecast as reliable is

a) when I look up and from the holes showing blue sky above it is obvious the layer is some 2000ft thick (and with a de-iced prop I would fairly happily climb through that even if it was all freezing), or

b) I can get a Skew-T from e.g.

http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

(choose region=europe and type of plot = GIF/skew-t) and a nearby station shows (in a very recent ascent) something like this

http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=europe&TYPE=GIF%3ASKEWT&YEAR=2005&MONTH=01&FROM=1400&TO=1400&STNM=03354

which shows a well defined top at about 1500m. This is in effect a METAR.

Otherwise, a 10k ft top forecast could be anywhere from say 5000ft to 15000ft. The great thing about F215 weather is like ISO or BS Standards - there are so many to choose from :)

DFC

14th Jun 2005, 15:05

It is very interesting to note that many seem to link use of the pitot heat in imc or even flight in IMC at all with the 0C level. The pitot heat must be on when operating in any visible moisture even when VMC and it is possible for ice to form on the aircraft in VMC and in IMC when the OAT shows a tempeature above 0C.

AOPA has an online course for the Single Pilot IFR and NASA has another for Flight in Icing conditions. Both are well worth the time and are free.

As for the question about flying over Wales - If I planned a VFR flight over wales I would not plan VFR unless I could expect to be 2500ft vertically clear of cloud at cruise level during the proposed flight and any possible diversion. If I can't get that then I will plan IFR and hope that I can remain VMC to enjoy the view but it will not matter much if I can't.

One big difference bewteen the VFR flight and the IFR one would be the fact that the VFR could be based on simple DR perhaps out of coverage of navigation aids while the IFR one would require some pre-planned use of appropriate Navigation aids.

Again if anyone thinks that needing such a high cloudbase for VFR flight would mean that many VFR flights would not take place they are correct. The answer is not to lower the operating minima to suit the climate (or the cost of obtaining an IR) the answer is to stick to safe operating minima and if that means not flying then either put up with it or move to a better climate.

If I go unplanned IMC on a VFR flight, it will be Climb, 7700, Mayday call and request diversion. It will hopefully end up with my making a report of how stupid I was to get there in the first place. I will not have learned about flying from the experience I will have learned about not flying.

However, reading IO540 and Fuji Abound's comments I think that they are talking about VFR flights operated in accordance with IFR i.e. they have made all the decisions pre-flight that enables safe IFR flight by as they say "current competent Instrument pilots".

One wonders how much the GPS has changed pilot's attitudes to going IMC on a whim. When one relied on VOR and NDB as the sole means of navigating in IMC one made darn sure that one was aware of one's position at all times even if it was hard work. Of course, GPS does bolster one's confidence in being able to avoid not only terrain but also airspace but last time I checked few VFR flyers have BRNAV approved GNSS units. Even those IR pilots who did have BRNAV were not aware of the requirement to plan to stay 5nm laterally away from controlled airspace when using BRNAV as sole means of navigation in Class G.

More importantly, when flying on a VFR flight and going from VMC to IMC and back to VMC 100 times during the flight does the pilot fly at the appropriate IFR level when IMC and if in receipt of an ATS service do they notify the changes so that other flights can be warned?........or would it not be simpler to say that the flight is IFR but intermittantly VMC!

Regards,

DFC

IO540

14th Jun 2005, 16:16

If I go unplanned IMC on a VFR flight, it will be Climb, 7700, Mayday call and request diversion

There isn't much point in debating flight in IMC with a pilot who would do the above. It's fair enough for a PPL but it removes all credibility for his views on the safety of flight in IMC. It's a bit like me expressing views on transatlantic navigation of a 747.

As for Wales, I fly there fairly often for a purpose, and the problem there is that the clouds are often below the hilltops. Conditions like that are simply not flyable VFR, no matter how slow the aircraft is. They are flyable IFR but then where is one going to land? An all-GPS DIY approach, or an unofficial NDB procedure into say Welshpool? A lot of the time, Wales just isn't flyable and that's it.

Miserlou

14th Jun 2005, 20:09

IO540,

Whatever the forecast, there is still nothing wrong with looking for yourself.

It's a thinking game and when ice is thrown into the equation your actions must have a good out or plan B (and C if you like).

What a plonker I'd have been to have sat at 4,000' with tops at 6 or 8 or 9 for that matter.

I may even also have got to 10,000 still IMC WITHOUT getting any ice. You just don't know.

The aircraft I was flying can get to that altitude in less than 5 minutes which doesn't represent a high risk for climbing to have a look, especially with the high 0c level.

As it was, the conditions at 10,000 were difused tops, no horizon, just a pale shade of white and there was no further ice accretion.

I have mentioned convective cloud in an earlier post and the ice exposure was very brief. These clouds often have limited lateral extent. In freezing rain or drizzle, which you can get in positive temperatures, where you are flying along quite happily below a warm front.

There was nothing wrong with that decision.

IO540

14th Jun 2005, 21:12

I agree the decision was fine, because the freezing level was (presumably this was UK) well above the MSA so you had a way out which was to descend a bit. I do the same. What I meant was that the possibility of ice accumulation was to be expected. But it sounds like you had a turbo/turbine aircraft (2000ft/min sustained to 10k ft isn't bad!) which is something else (even if it was not "known ice" cert)

Flyin'Dutch'

14th Jun 2005, 21:57

DFC,

You write that your glibly go up into IMC:

If I go unplanned IMC on a VFR flight, it will be Climb, 7700, Mayday call and request diversion.

whereas a few pages back you suggest that:

if you are an IMC holder or IR holder then only go IMC if the divert/ precautionary landing option is not available

So what is it?

You furthermore state that:

1. Your personal minima for flying VFR in the UK is that you can stay at least 1000ft under the cloudbase (for fear of aeroplanes tumbling out of that cloudbase from nowhere)

2. That people should stick to their personal minima

3. That your personal minima over Wales is 2500ft.

So what is your personal minima and can you at least on here stick to that to avoid confusion amongst us poor readers.

boomerangben

14th Jun 2005, 22:19

IO,I think what I meant by average ppl someone who does the average number of hours a year for a ppl, regardless of ratings. In other words someone who is not flying enough to be able to maintain an ordered thought and action process when presented with an inadvertant IMC situation.

I still maintain that for the average private pilot and therefore(?) average reader of this forum, going IMC is the worst of the three options available (and I think that this is the point DFC is trying to get across). A forced landing is nearly as bad and is only second because it is rarely fatal (at least until the owner of the aeroplane/insurance company gets to you!!). An early turn should be considered the only option.

Sunfish

14th Jun 2005, 23:50

I still have the feeling that certain people here are talking with a straight face about the correct way to play russian roulette. I have to agree with DFC.

I am a simple low time VFR pilot.

The available and voluminous documentation on VFR into IMC consistently says the same thing.

1. Young players are seduced into scud running with maybe a bit of "get there-itis" as well.

2. The cloud gradually clamps down, but you continue hoping that there will be just enough clearance at the head of the valey that you know so well.

3. There isn't clearance and by now there is no room to turn and remain in VMC, and even if you can turn the back door has been silently closed. You try to climb or turn on instruments and Two minutes later, on average, you are dead.

To paraphrase the old Master Mariners exam question; "What do you do when you are rated VFR and you are flying up a valley into rising terrain covered with low cloud? The answer can only be "Never let yourself be found in such a situation".

While I am not instrument rated, I would suspect, that it is very different and more dangerous transitioning from VMC into IMC from a height of 200 feet above trees, below LSALT, probably with a distressed passenger or two, as against leaving an airport with an IFR flight plan in your lap and all your navaids, waypoints and frequencies set up, with your mind calm and mentally prepared to fly IFR.

To put it another way, I don't think "Oh I'll just plan and file VFR and if the weather goes bad, I'll just transition to IFR'. Is a sound idea.

For that reason I think DFC's suggestion is the better one.

Plan A: Prepare and fly IFR.
Plan B: Fly VFR as a bonus if weather permits.

As for me

Plan A: Prepare and fly VFR
Plan B: If it looks like VFR is dodgy, go somewhere else or do something else.

I pray that all this is merely an academic argument for all of us forever.

Flyin'Dutch'

15th Jun 2005, 08:25

To avoid that we are talking across purposes here it would probably be best to clarify the different scenarios.

If you have a vanilla PPL, or an IMCR/IR and are not current. Stay out of IMC.

But those with an IMCR/IR and are current will all climb into IMC carry on or return to VMC conditions or fly on doing a procedure at the end.

The notion, as advocated by DFC, that we (current IMCR/IR jockeys) should all make a precautionary landing is rubbish.

If DFC reckons that the transition VFR->IFR is so dangerous that it should can only be done after hours of preparation and deliberation beforehand, that may say something about his/her ability to do so.

Anyone who knows anything about flying in IMC will just laugh at his suggestion.

Anyone who knows anything about flying in IMC and knows that this may be on the cards will have appropriate charts and plates as standard in their steed.

The situation in the UK is a bit different from a lot of other places, in that you can fly IFR here (in IMC) without a clearance or any service (radar or otherwise).

Fuji Abound

15th Jun 2005, 11:22

It is interesting to read the comments of other pilots particularly those without an IR of any sort. Rightly they have had drummed into them the importance of remaining visual and if they really cant remain visual for whatever reason making a landing in the nearest field. We all seem to be in complete agreement on this.

I do however get the impression that many of those same pilots and some with instrument ratings have little or no idea of instrument flying in the real world - it seems to be portrayed as some sort of magical demonic art form for the slightly deranged or at least more irresponsible among us.

Returning to the little experience I encountered - you are over the sea at say 800 feet just below the base and wanting to turn in land. It is quite clear just north of the coast the base is much lower - maybe five hundred feet or less but you know 40 miles in land the base is around 1,800 feet with decent holes, blue sky above. You know the weather is clearing from the north west the direction in which you are going. You are in a control zone so you can get a RIS and there is a vectored ILS available within the same zone should you need it. You have got the plates with you as well because you typically carry the plates with you for most of the available procedures in the local area. You have got sufficient fuel to return to base and are very familiar with the approaches there. You were not necessarily expecting to go IMC and had hoped to reach your destination without doing so but it was at the back of your mind when you departed. All systems are functioning normally. OK, so you tell the controller you want to climb IFR to the MSA which you have checked on your chart and then wish to head north west with a RIS. You also tell them when you get near your destination you will be looking for a descent maintaining VMC. You have already checked all the instruments are functioning normally and have the luxury you have been flying with them for a little while rather than having entered IMC just after departure. You have also settled into the flying and although you have been in VMC the viz has not been great and you have already been partially on instruments. In short, you are a lot more comfortable than if you had just departed into weather. You have plenty of diversion options, you have a pretty good idea where the tops are, and you know there is no risk of freezing or Cbs. You have a number of VORs available to track and cross refer, the GPS is behaving itself (as it always does) and you have been given a heading by the unit you are working. You trim for the climb, go straight onto instruments and a few minutes later settle down at 2,400 feet above the MSA in IMC. In due course the holes start appearing as expected and a comfortable descent still under a RIS until visual is carried out and an uneventful landing.

That is in my experience quite typical. There are of course plenty of permutations about that theme. With an instrument rating, it is not rocket science, it is not scary, and you certainly don’t feel like you are practising a magical demonic art form. You don’t declare a mayday and you certainly don’t panic. You don’t want your AI to fail, you obviously don’t want the engine to fail and if either did you would wish you had another engine or were more current flying the turn and slip, but you still reckon you would cope with the first event reasonably well, if maybe not the second. You are glad you are not doing 400 knots in a fast jet coming out of low level in terrain that is for sure.

Is it more risky than turning back from whence you came VMC? Yes, probably a bit, but only by a very marginal amount in this scenario. Do you think you have just had a close shave? - certainly not. Did you feel any pressure to make the transition? - no, in fact you would have been less comfortable scud running north.

Rightly or wrongly that is my experience of flying with a current instrument rating. Rightly or wrongly as far as I can see it is not illegal and rightly or wrongly in my assessment the risk is only very very marginally greater than continuing VMC - in fact there comes a point when I would far rather be IMC than in marginal VMC.

As I said plenty of permutations about a theme, and plenty of occasions when a climb into IMC with freezing conditions, turbulence, Cbs., lack of suitable diversions etc etc would all contribute to degrade the comfort factor and leave you wishing very firmly you were somewhere else! However you can always say if so and so happens or you encounter so and so then you will have a problem and that is why as pilots we are trained to assess the situation and use our judgement to decide whether we are putting ourselves and others at risk. Of course, unfortunately we do not always get it right. The CAA have consistently said any flying IMC with a single engine public transport is too risky. They may be right, and for sure it is a point of view, albeit the statistics do not appear to support their argument. In my opinion it is simply wrong to suggest that in all conditions a current instrument rated pilot will struggle transitioning from VMC to IMC whatever planning he may or may not have done.

Miserlou

15th Jun 2005, 15:28

Fuji,
What you describe sounds much more like an IFR flight which you will continue VFR is conditions allow.

I don't think this is anyway unsafe and I don't think that this is a scenario which claims so many victims.

Effectively, the ability to continue VMC is a bonus, a positive result. If the plan was to fly VMC and you had to go IMC then this would be a failure in the original plan, a negative with the pyschological baggage that goes along with that.

It's a like a false expectation. You have reports that the weather is better in the direction you want to go but can see a spell of scud-running. OK, go for it, it's only a shower or something along those lines (only 40 nm, perhaps).

Now, when you find that 5 minutes are up or you've flown the 40 miles and find yourself still in the thick, you have a host of issues, all of which negative and none of which are going to improve your further performance (except a little adrenalin, maybe).

When faced with this scenario it would be foolish to throw away any options. Being qualified to take another course doesn't necessarily make that the best one.

High Wing Drifter

15th Jun 2005, 17:07

Fuji,

...that is why as pilots we are trained to assess the situation and use our judgement to decide whether we are putting ourselves and others at risk
I don't disagree with your sentiments, then again I don't disagree with DFC's either. I can understand and comprehend both arguments. However, I don't actually remember being trained to assess situations, other than answering a few textbook scenarios on warm fronts, freezing rain, CB maturation and the like. The actual cognitive ability to cope is a different matter altogether. I guess that some of us have it (Fuji's argument) and some of us don't (DFC's argument). There is the obvious third option, but I don't wish to appear conceited so I'll leave it at that :)

Romeo Romeo

15th Jun 2005, 17:42

I’m with you on this one, Fuji. When I plan a flight I always look at the IFR/IMC option. I take the approach plates for the any airports that might be useful on the flight; I check the weather; the freezing level; the TAFs at the local airports. Before flight I check the instruments and if I decide to go into IMC, I go in with a plan and although I’m hoping for a short trip through the fluffy stuff to VMC on top, I’m prepared for solid IMC all the way to my destination, duff weather there and so a diversion to my alternate with ILS and an approach to minimums there – and all that with a vacuum failure.

It is far better to come up with a plan on the ground rather than trying to muddle through when blind panic has set in when you’re lost in cloud. If you haven’t got a plan and aren’t current on flying on instruments and doing approaches to minimums then a trip into cloud can be very dangerous.

IMC flying, like all flying isn’t dangerous, but it is very unforgiving.

boomerangben

15th Jun 2005, 21:14

I agree if you plan for the IMC option from the word go, there is no issue. Similarly there is no problem with being forced towards MSA due to worsening weather and electing to IMC if you are current and practised.

But what if you are a PPL who flys 70 hrs/ yr. You might have an IMCR but it's dusty. You are trying to get home on Sunday pm and you know the aerodrome (which has no approach aids) is only a few miles over the next bit of high ground. But you are at 800' running the scud, the gound is rising gently and it looks pretty dark ahead. What do you do? This is what I think the originator the thread was trying to get across.

I agree that DFC was maybe a little rash in the way he illustrated his point. But the point is sound. Going IMC whilst well below MSA, with an unpracticed scan, in weather that is not as forecast, wondering if the plates crumpled in the bottom the flight bag are reachable or indeed current..... etc etc... is not good.

And for the record, I do not have an IMC rating - I can't even fly a fixed wing. I do no private flying anymore (although I wish I could). So I am complete imposter on this forum. But that doesn't mean to say that I do not know what I am talking about.

IO540

15th Jun 2005, 21:26

Miserlou

We are splitting hairs on terminology here.

In UK airspace, Class D/G (no airways), there is no practical difference between

a) flying VFR while equipped and planned for IFR

b) flying IFR and ending up in VMC here and there

I do a) all the time; that's my normal flight planning mode and IMHO any instrument rated pilot should plan all flights that way (why the hell did you do your IMCR/IR if you then chuck away the extra options?).

Occassionally I do b) but I tend to do it only when the weather on departure is either atrocious or the tower won't allow a VFR departure in the conditions. It has the advantage that one gets an IFR departure clearance and the tower contacts the next radar ATCU en-route with your details and often one even gets a squawk allocated which saves messing about later. But - absent aforementioned conditions - it is rarely necessary because one can usually depart VFR and change to IFR immediately afterwards.

I think there are a number of people on here who have no instrument training (other than from the CAA safety seminar presenter ;) ) and have no idea beyond flight in VMC. I bet most of them have never even been in a well equipped modern plane.

boomerangben, why would someone go IMC when below the MSA? The whole idea of the instrument option is to AVOID flying below the MSA! And only an idiot would have out of date plates etc.

You are playing the same game as DFC: picking up an example pilot who shouldn't be doing something (because he's not trained and/or not current) and then using that to bash those that are trained and are current (and have current plates and don't have them at the bottom of their bag).

DFC

15th Jun 2005, 23:11

IO540,

There isn't much point in debating flight in IMC with a pilot who would do the above. It's fair enough for a PPL but it removes all credibility for his views on the safety of flight in IMC

This is not debating flight in IMC - it is about the unplanned/unexpected transition to IMC on a VFR flight. If it is fair enough for a PPL/IR or PPL/IMC holder, what difference the ATPL holder in the same sticky situation?

Class D airspace is controlled airspace - one has to be very clear about what rules one plans to operate under and a sudden request to go from VFR to IFR can be delayed for traffic reasons and cause unnecessary delays to other traffic in the system.

I love your comment - The whole idea of the instrument option is to AVOID flying below the MSA because it sits at odds with Fuji's story about flying round at 800ft.

---------

Fuji,

I read your story of a typical flight that you make and while I know it is not unusual, it shows how IMC holders are perhaps unaware of just what their operating practices look like with the old 20/20 hindsight (which always prevails after an acident). Some examples -

You state that you knew that there was an 800ft cloudbase over the sea and that it lowered to 500 ft overland on your proposed route but got better closer to home............why on earth did you even considder the VFR option in such marginal weather? Surely you must have known at the planning stage that this was going to be either an IFR flight or a scud running marginal VFR flight? Thus again I think that you were aware from the start and had planned this as an IFR flight.

You are in a control zone so you can get a RIS and there is a vectored ILS available within the same zone should you need it

RIS is a service outside controlled airspace Control Zones mean Air Traffic Control Service. Ask an ATCO what they think of VFR flights that suddenly declare a desire to go IFR and climb in the middle of their zone and what an effect it has on their workload, how it affects all the other properly planned IFR flights within the zone and what they think when the IMC weather was well forecast?

it is not scary

It sure scares the heck out of me when I am being vectored to the ILS and some little guy in the zone suddenly declares a serious need to go IFR and climb in the zone........my first thought is "Is that idiot going to climb up and hit me?".......followed by "That plonker is probably going to cause me to miss this approach" but hey......it's bread and butter stuff for IMC holders like you eh?

I am sure that you are only using a story that never really happened to illustrate your point of view....cause if it did happen for real then the departing VFR in marginal conditions, flying at 800ft over water to remain VMC and then calling up in a control zone for RIS and IFR climb would scare the heck out of everyone!

--------

Flyin Dutch,

So what is it?

It is simple - I will not go unplanned IMC. I will avoid it at all costs. If I am stupid enough to be left with no other option or I am evem more stupid and end up unexpectidely IMC, I will climb, 7700, Mayday and get diverted to safety ASAP. I would make the appropriate report after my hopefully safe arrival.

My call would obvously state current IR holder - after all I do several IR renewals per year and fly lots of IFR. I would still consider myself a fool for having go into that sitiation and would think hard about where the planning or operation went wrong and how to avoid it happening ever again.

1. Your personal minima for flying VFR in the UK is that you can stay at least 1000ft under the cloudbase (for fear of aeroplanes tumbling out of that cloudbase from nowhere)

2. That people should stick to their personal minima

3. That your personal minima over Wales is 2500ft.

So what is your personal minima and can you at least on here stick to that to avoid confusion amongst us poor readers.

I understand that "at least 1000ft" means 1000ft or greather. Thus being 5000ft below the cloud base is consistent with being at least 1000ft below the cloud.

Over Wales due to the terrain one will probably have a cruise level of 3000ft or more. The legal minima for VMC at that height is 1000ft vertically from cloud, the undulating terrain may make turbulence and wave which I add on another 500ft at times to my cruise altitude and then another 1000ft to allow for the cloud continuing to lower during a diversion 1000+1000+500=2500ft.

Over lower terrain and in smooth air with a cruise level below 3000ft, 1000ft below cloud should allow that a diversion would result in an arrival while still VMC i.e. clear of cloud (but watch out for the DIY approach guys dropping out of ther bottom!

-----------

Overall, If this was a debate about flying single engine across large amounts of water, we would have some who say there is nothing wrong and it is all personal risk and then we would have the others who would say never do it in anything other than a twin. Both camps have their merit. However I doubt that the SEP cross water camp would be calling the twin camp whimps or saying that they are wrong to hold such conservative views to safety would they?

Can't remember who made the point earlier - but yes, the CAA do recomend that in certain critical situtaions, the action after engine failure on a light twin is to close both throttles and force land the aircraft - re-inforced after the tragic Glasgow fatal accident.

Regards,

DFC

IO540

16th Jun 2005, 04:35

Time to give up on this one.

englishal

16th Jun 2005, 07:20

Its boils down to personal ability. If you don't have the ability, even though a pilot has an IR, and he/she FEELS the need to sqwark 7700 and declare a mayday when entering a bit of cloud.......then thats fine, and their choice.

Personnally I don't see anything wrong with transitioning from VFR to IFR, it is done all the time in America where you have 100 mile vis in the deserts, and cloud along the coasts. If I had declared a mayday every time I had to request a pop-up clearance, I'm sure the FAA would have taken my ticket away by now....

It is no different than climbing on an IFR flight plan, and transitioning from VMC to IMC.....you still HAVE to look out of the window during the VMC phase, then transition to instruments during the IMC phase.....I really can't see a problem? I also carry approach plates up front with me, along with an IFR chart even if flying VFR, as I'm sure most IR/IMC rated pilots would do......isn't this common sense?

IN my experience, in the UK, it is easy to get a radar vectored ILS in a class D zone, transitioning from VFR to IFR.....

I agree though, time to give up....

DFC

16th Jun 2005, 08:32

It has nothing to do with ability. The person who says that will be the same person who lands in a 20Kt crosswind and thinks that shows some superior ability over a pilot (in the same aircraft type) who requests a more into wind runway. That is the wrong type of peer pressure and is dangerous because it can have an effect on those that don't know better.

To end up, we must agree that the teaching of the IR and the IMC ratings demonstrate a well tried and tested system of teaching all the normal elements and the unexpected or emergency elements also during IFR IMC flight.

How much time on the IR is spent departing VFR and then without any plan and little notice going IFR. Same goes for the IMC. In both cases students are drummed with the importance of carefull and thorough pre-flight planing and making the correct decisions as the earliest opportunity.

Perhaps the IMC should be increased to 20 hours and more transitions from VFR flight to unexpected IFR done and of course the resultant scramble round for a frequency and someone to provide some assistance. Then if what some say is the norm for UK operations would be reflected in the training for the UK only rating.

To finish, I remember the old poster with two aircraft approaching a small fluffy cloud and each pilot saying "I'll just pop through this little cloud". :)

Regards,

DFC

Genghis the Engineer

16th Jun 2005, 09:46

Just a passing thought.

There are some very valid and clear posts above about the inadvisability of going into IMC if you aren't current in the practice. Many of those people have advocated, if all else fails, landing in a field.

However picking, then landing in, a field is a flying skill like any other. There are many issues to be considered - surface wind, surface condition, length, slope, setting it up, hopefully picking a field that you can fly out of again once things have improved.

Now how many people practice all that with any regularity?

Because if you haven't, it may be that a "180" in IMC for a few minutes back into known clear space could be the less risky option.

If you aren't practicing either, you probably need to stick to flying in perfect VMC over flat ground with very big fields !

G

Fuji Abound

16th Jun 2005, 10:25

DFC

The flight happened almost exactly as recounted. The base and viz along the coast was probably a bit better - certainly no problem VFR. The base and viz through the Southampton zone was unexpected and not predicted by either the departing TAF or METAR.

My friend just ahead in another aircraft continued VFR.

Interestingly two other aircraft were routing CI to Southampton on VFR flight plans. Both obviously saw the poorer weather over the coast and were OFFERED IFR by the controller. A couple of other commercial guys turned up around the same time. Strangely it all worked, the controller was as helpful and polite as ever and seemed to be particularly unsurprised by the whole event. In fact one of the commercial guys appeared to be struggling rather more than the rest of us.

There are times I am as worried by the “little guy” as you, particularly when they sound like they don’t really know what they are doing. However, by the aircraft giving a VFR position report at Lymington I suppose we all assume a commercial captain descending on the ILS would himself have sufficient situational awareness to realise this "plonker" is not a threat.
I would be interested how many times you are aware an approach has been broken off by a “plonker” popping up on a declared transition from VFR to IFR. I am not talking about pilots inadvertently entering a control zone or obviously being lost. How many times have you broken off an approach for this reason? I also know I would be far happier with our friendly plonker squawking rather than him lost and bimbling around so that when I first saw him I had just descended through the base on my approach, although I suppose primary radar and traffic avoidance might have proved some help along the way. Ah well, I suppose when we have all got our mode S installed you will be able to relax.

In all my time flying I have never heard a pilot state he has a current instrument rating - not once. I have occasionally heard a controller ask a pilot whether he can accept an IFR clearance, quite different.

Pilots bumping into each other in fluffy clouds, declaring themselves to be current instrument rated pilots and scarring the hell out of others being vectored for the ILS is all good emotive stuff but I don’t think it really contributes anything to this debate other than leave some of us wondering if you really know what you are talking about.

Thats my lot.

bookworm

16th Jun 2005, 16:09

Interesting experience this morning. I went down to Cambridge airport intending a VFR flight to Sandtoft to put some time on a fairly new engine.

(Cambridge) TAF EGSC 160610Z 160716 23013KT 9999 SCT020 TEMPO 0811 7000 -RA BECMG 1114 7000 -RA BKN012 PROB40 TEMPO 1215 20015G25KT 4500 DZ BKN008 TEMPO 1516 9999 BKN017=

(Doncaster) TAF EGCN 160603Z 160716 21010KT 9999 SCT020 SCT050=

I think I probably still had those in my head when I departed Cambridge VFR at 1040, though they had been updated to:

TAF EGSC 160905Z 161019 23013KT 9999 SCT020 BECMG 1012 BKN012 PROB40 TEMPO 1114 20015G25KT 4000 RA BKN008 TEMPO 1519 BKN017=

TAF EGCN 160915Z 161019 21013KT 9999 SCT018 BKN040 PROB30 TEMPO 1019 5000 -RADZ BKN012=

It still seemed that a VFR arrival at Sandtoft would be possible, though I'd taken plates for Cambridge and Doncaster. However by then the ceiling was around 1800 ft so I asked for a climb to FL45 and cruised on top.

The transition to instruments was uneventful, despite a lot of rust on my IR. I decided to press on, thinking that if I couldn't get in to Sandtoft, I'd just turn around and come back. It took an embarrassingly large number seconds before I thought "doh, fuel", and realised that I'd better make sure that I could do that with decent IFR reserves, which I hadn't previously considered. I had intended to pick up fuel at Sandtoft and I'd departed with about 2.5 hours in the tanks. It seemed to pan out, just, so I continued.

I ended up descending to 2000 ft in solid IMC close to Sandtoft. I asked Sandtoft for a base, which was 1100 ft, so I gave up and went home at FL55. When I got back to Cambridge it had improved and I flew the ILS in excellent vis from about 2000 ft, with plenty of reserve.

I thought of this thread. I don't think there was anything that I did that involved significant risk, but I did kick myself a little that I hadn't bothered to plan the flight more thoroughly as IFR.

Fuji Abound

16th Jun 2005, 16:37

Bookworm - that is an interesting post.

I just wanted to add to my earlier posts that I am not intending to suggest that the type of flights recounted should be taken on lightly. I also agree that it is far far better the transition (if it proves necessary) should have been thought about and planned on the ground.

There is a lot to think about going IFR not least have I got enough fuel. DFC has some sound points.

To get back on track the point I have sort to make is given the potentially very dangerous situation the original poster set out I still consider it is a sound option for the IRed pilot. I also still think a mayday and declaring you are instrument rated etc etc is all a bit dramatic - yes having sorted yourself out in IMC above the MSA and thought about fuel, diversions, etc etc you may well find you pretty urgently need some help getting down safely - get help, make a Pan or even a Mayday if you need to BUT if you are IRed and current I still believe you should be able to safely fly the aircraft through the transition into stable SandL flight in IMC.

In Bookworm's case it would seem to me he had plently of options not least EGNX just to the west of track. Short of instrument failure the absolute key issue of course is can you safely climb, level and descend on instruments and once level be sufficiently comfortable to sort out the next steps (better still of course if you did that before climbing). Again I would refer back to the original poster - you are already in a dangerous situation with obscured rising ground ahead and possibly no way back without serious scud running!

Bookworm - out of interest why did you transition IFR and did you feel subsequently it was the correct action to have taken?

bookworm

16th Jun 2005, 16:45

Bookworm - out of interest why did you transition IFR and did you feel subsequently it was the correct action to have taken?

Yes. The alternative would have been to scud run below the cloud, which I'm even more rusty at than IFR ;), or return to Cambridge immediately, which didn't really seem necessary. Had the IMC been much more convective, I would have thought twice about the entire flight, and probably have gone back to Cambridge rather than make the transition.

DFC

16th Jun 2005, 17:24

However, by the aircraft giving a VFR position report at Lymington I suppose we all assume a commercial captain descending on the ILS would himself have sufficient situational awareness to realise this "plonker" is not a threat.

Yup, he would consider him an even bigger plonker for not being able to read a chart and realise that Limington is not within any zone :)

In all my time flying I have never heard a pilot state he has a current instrument rating - not once

You have not heard many Mayday calls then. Check ot CAP 413.

---------

Bookworm,

The met office enroute forecastissued at 0255 for that route was giving occasional cloud base of 1200ft AMSL and isolated base of 500ft AMSL. The cloud tops were forecast to be well above FL100...........Was it really a suitable day for VFR at the planning stage? (20/20 hindsight full on!)

TAFS are for a very small localised area round an aerodrome. The enroute forecast seems to have been spot on from what you say. So why not simply go IFR from the start?

-----------

Again I fear that the more often that people get away with something, the more they are lulled into thinking that actually it may not be that serious a situation after all. :(

Regards,

DFC

bookworm

16th Jun 2005, 18:52

The met office enroute forecastissued at 0255 for that route was giving occasional cloud base of 1200ft AMSL and isolated base of 500ft AMSL. The cloud tops were forecast to be well above FL100...........Was it really a suitable day for VFR at the planning stage? (20/20 hindsight full on!)

You're taking a somewhat biased view of the forecast:

The flight was along the N/S boundary between two zones on the F215, which I think you're referring to. The worse of the two was:

GEN 12 KM 6/8SC 3000/5000, 7-8/8SCASAC 7000/15000
OCNL 6KM RA 2-5/8STSC 1200/5000, 8/8LYR 6000/17000
ISOL 3KM +RA 4-7/8 ST 500/1500, 8/8 LYR 2000/23000

I've had many decent VFR flights in conditions with similar forecasts. On departure the Cambridge ATIS gave 10+ FEW015 BKN025. I don't think it was unreasonable to expect to be able to remain VFR, given that I was heading towards rather better conditions.

The last METAR available close to destination before I departed was:
METAR EGCN 160950Z 19013KT 9999 FEW031 SCT037 BKN046 17/11 Q1016=

TAFS are for a very small localised area round an aerodrome.

I think that's a bit misleading. Enroute forecasts cover huge zones, and the TAFs add a great deal of value in assessing where the conditions vary from the enroute forecast. It's not as if EGCN was forecast to remain in a 5 mile weather exclusion zone while all went to pot around and about. ;)

So why not simply go IFR from the start?

Well with that 20/20 hindsight you mentioned, I would.

I think you miss the point of my post a bit -- it was to illustrate that it does make sense to plan all such flights as IFR. I had, in essence, done so, and any surprise was rather mild. I don't believe I would have conducted the flight any differently, except that the departure would have been delayed by other IFR traffic. It was more a comment about mindset and expectation, and I think it supports some of the points you've made in the thread.

Fuji Abound

16th Jun 2005, 19:47

"RIS is a service outside controlled airspace Control Zones mean Air Traffic Control Service."

"Yup, he would consider him an even bigger plonker for not being able to read a chart and realise that Limington is not within any zone "

Come on get a grip old chap - RIS is a service outside a control zone and our pilot on the ILS is on the look out for plonkers.

Debates like this can degrade into pedantics and into trying to be clever and spoil the debate. The example I gave as I guess you know full well was intended to be illustrative.

I also said I wouldnt declare a Mayday in the situation you describe so CAP 413 is irrelevant.

I have only heard two Maydays fortunately - neither declared themselves to be instrument rated - I hope I never have to declare a Mayday, but I will try to remember to tell the service agent I am IRed!

Now lets get down to it. You are at 500 feet, rising terrain and IRed. You have been a complete plonker getting yourself into that situation but some how you did. Thats the situation. As it happens you didnt do you your preflight IFR planning and the terrain is pretty unkind. You climb, make a Mayday call, say you are IRed, scare the hell out of one of our commercial friends, report yourself to the CAA afterwards etc. All fine. It would seem we agree that if you are CURRENT that is probably your best option - do we agree? Thats the debate. You might never get yourself into that situation because your planning is perfect (every time) but it happens, it WILL happen to pilots less experienced than you make out to be. There is a very good chance you WILL kill yourself landing in that sort of terrain, there is also a very good chance you will fly into a mast scud running, but I reckon with a CURRENT IR you will survive a climb IMC. Thats the debate.

""UNLESS you have an IMC or instrument rating and a suitably equipted aircraft and are in current practice and expereinced you must remain in sight of the surface. Before encountering lowering cloudbase or visibility make plans to retreat or divert. If conditions get worse eg 1,000 foot cloudbase or visibility less than 3 K carry out these plans immediately".

It is almost a quote but I couldnt cut and paste from the pdf.

Note the wording that would suggest to me you do certain things if you are not instrument rated but there may be other possibilities if you are subject to the caveats.

The whole section is under the title "diversions"."

My quote.

Why do we think the word UNLESS is used and why is there specific reference to IMC or instrument rating?

S-Works

16th Jun 2005, 20:08

and there I was today bimbling along VFR when I decided that it must be better in the sunshine, I climbed up on top through a couple of thousand feet of cloud and lo and behold my unplanned trip in IMC did not end in a mayday or crash into the side of a hill.

Boy I am feeling lucky, now for a lottery ticket.......

:p

Miserlou

16th Jun 2005, 20:25

Don't be a pedant Bose, you weren't forced to climb.

I don't know where you quote from but I'd like to suggest that the 'unless' is there because if you have an IMC rating you should find it easier to keep the aircraft the right way up and may drop the safety margins.

I'd be interested to know why there are instrument qualified pilots in the accident statistics at all, except, perhaps for the more obvious causes.

Also, I'm not keen on seeing the word 'current' in these posts. It is a condition which negates what you write if exclude it and it is not included in the accident statistics.

Finally, I'd like to draw attention to the difference between 'scud-running' and 'low level navigation'.
There may not actually be a difference but there is when I use them.

Scud-running is where you fly as high as the clouds will allow and where they allow you to do so when you would rather be flying considerably higher.

Low level cross country is just that and doesn't depend on the cloud base or visibilty. It is also an art which allows scud-running to be performed in considerably more safety than usually implied by the use of the term.

The flights which Bookworm and Fuji describe are flights which could easily have been planned low level.

Incidentally, the first time I turned away from lowering cloud and rising terrain was on my first attempt at my qualifying cross country.

Fuji Abound

16th Jun 2005, 20:34

"The flights which Bookworm and Fuji describe are flights which could easily have been planned low level."

Agreed but there comes a point when your low level skills are less good than your IR skills, or your low level options run out.

"Also, I'm not keen on seeing the word 'current' in these posts. It is a condition which negates what you write if exclude it and it is not included in the accident statistics."

I think we are using the word current because we acknowledge IR skills degrade quickly with lack of currency, but in the same way the option to make a PL is only likely to be as successful as your PFL skills - which realistically many peolpe are aslo not current with.

S-Works

16th Jun 2005, 21:06

pedant? Actually it was sarcasm!

I did have to climb, the sunshine was beckoning.....

:D

Fuji Abound

16th Jun 2005, 21:21

I am slightly struggling with this concept of pop up IFR traffic causing a commercial to break off an approach, and it is worrying me, particularly as I am happy to be a prat but only if I know why.

Presumably our VFR traffic has got himself into the zone undetected below the base and presumably below radar cover or the approach controller is having a tea break. Then presumably he suddenly declares he is going IFR, gives a false position (because he is lost) and climbs through say a 1,000 foot base to conflict with the localiser.

That is just about the only scenario I can think of and just doesn’t sound very credible.

VFR traffic straying into a zone because the pilot is lost resulting in a loss a separation with break offs I can understand - unfortunately they happen. Lost Ired pilots creeping undetected under the base and popping up IFR without a clearance I am struggling with.

CAP 413 note 1 is also worth a read - there is no ICAO requirement to declare your ratings and the suggestion to do so is coupled with passing ANY information that might be useful to the controller to assist. I suspect if I was IR rated it would not be high on my priorities. I would be far more concerned to say I was NOT IRed.

Miserlou

16th Jun 2005, 21:30

I know how you feel, Bose.

Fuji,
I only object to 'current' because it's being used against a statement which makes no such assumption.

The only difference between a precautionary landing and the one carried out at the end of every flight is that one must select a suitable field and having made the decision to land one can argue that you are excused rule 5.

You can get courses in low flying, by the way, including minimalist navigation. Strangely, there is no formal qualification.

Genghis the Engineer

17th Jun 2005, 08:49

As an aside, whilst not (so far as I'm aware) formally part of the various "Group A" syllabi, low flying and low-level navigation (at ~500ft) are part of the microlight syllabus. This makes reasonable sense to anybody who has done any microlight X-country flying, since you often fly slow enough to have a reasonable chance to rethink and replan, or turn around in very little airspace - but that same lack of speed tends to dictate nigh-on direct routing each time.

Which is a longwinded way of saying, if you want to learn about (civil) low-level cross country flying, the most cost-effective place to go might be your local microlight school. (Exercise 16, forced landings with and without power, operation at minimum level.)

G

Miserlou

17th Jun 2005, 11:01

Low level navigation was also included in another EU country's CPL syllabus.

I was asked, on my test, to descend to 500'agl and after circumnavigating a town asked to fly to a non-planned grass airfield and land there.
As soon as you turn on course he asks for a distance and an ETA.

Great fun!

FullyFlapped

17th Jun 2005, 14:17

Just out of interest, when you guys (who do) transition from VFR into IMC and then decide to "continue IFR", do you get on the horn and file IFR airborne ? Or do you just announce the fact that you are IFR to the next LARS you talk to ?

I'm interested because I must admit, I'm totally with the "I don't mind making the VMC-IMC jump" crowd ...

FF :ok:

Fuji Abound

17th Jun 2005, 14:52

FF - I would request something along the following lines G-XXXX 1,500, 1016, overhead mike, india, delta, would like to climb 2,400, IFR and IMC, routing direct charlie, papa, tango, request a radar information service. Ideally if I hadnt got the RIS I would like it before going IMC.

Of course the call would vary depending on whether a RIS was available and do doubt thats another whole can of worms!!

Thats sticking my head above to be shot down by someone :)

IO540

17th Jun 2005, 15:45

FF

As FA says, it's straightforward (in the UK), in Class G:

a) If NOT in radio contact, you can change VFR/IFR anytime. It's no more than your state of mind! Hey, here comes a cloud, now we are IFR. And .... now we are VFR again!

b) If IN radio contact, what one does on the changeover depends on how much interest the ATCO is showing in you:

If on a non-radar service (e.g. London Info), you can do a) above. They haven't got a clue where you are anyway, and where any conflicting traffic might be. They might be interested when you reach the next reporting point.

If on a radar service and getting an FIS (RIS not available due to workload etc) I would usually tell them; say "G-ABCD entering IMC, changing to IFR". They reply Roger G-ABCD.

If on a radar service and getting an RIS, I would definitely tell them, but the outcome is the same, except you won't be offered reports of traffic 10 miles away :O. If the traffic gets close, you can ask for an upgrade to an RAS (i.e. ask for vectors to avoid this one). In class G, they cannot control what rules you choose to fly under.

In controlled airspace (which in England is Class D+) it's different, because you need a clearance and the clearance specifies VFR or IFR, and on a VFR clearance you must maintain VMC. If unable to maintain VMC then one has to request a change to IFR, or a change in level ("to maintain VMC"), but usually you get it (what else could they do, in reality??).

Outside the UK, one needs a full IR to do any IFR flight. In reality of course lots of non-IR pilots pop in and out of cloud, especially given that most countries (UK being one exception) permit a basic PPL to fly VMC on top. It's a problem only if one hits something, which almost never happens when en-route. What one must avoid is doing something that will make one stick out like a sore thumb, which is to do an IFR arrival or departure. And a lot of airfields have strict minima for VFR departures; e.g. Biarritz is 1200ft min cloudbase. So it's easy to be stuck there for days. Which is why the stampede to the FAA IR (and N-reg) - for pre-planned European touring it's essential.

So, while the UK has the awful airspace structure with Class A down to 2500ft in places, it has great freedom for messing about outside of it. I am not sure which I would prefer.