View Full Version : Must Read! - VFR into IMC Report

27th Jun 2005, 02:28
ATSB new report released today.


Not sure if this belongs here,

27th Jun 2005, 12:19
Well done Sunfish :ok:

27th Jun 2005, 12:42
Sunfish you're an addict.

Put it in GA........

29th Jun 2005, 03:53
Why does this belong in GA? Regional airline pilots aren't immune to littering the countryside with wreckage a underneath solid cloud base themselves..............

leave it right where it is!

29th Jun 2005, 10:18
I'd love that cover photo as a desktop. Anyone know where I could get a copy?

Capt L
29th Jun 2005, 12:19
I've got it on an email, but I'm not sure how to put it on here. If you want a copy, let me know and I'll send it to you.

According to the email it was taken near Bunbury WA during the recent storms. There are some other pretty impressive photos in the email, so if someone tells me how to do it I'll post them here.

29th Jun 2005, 16:10
Why does this belong in GA? General Aviation pilot behaviours in the face of adverse weatherGood on ya binoss, straight to the heart of the matter.....:rolleyes:

30th Jun 2005, 22:40
A caution for people wanting to share this around...

On p17-18 regarding the VFR into IMC scenario, the graph shows the "Fatal" and "Nil" statistics the opposite way around from the text. Having spent a few years doing this sort of thing myself I tend to believe the text, not the picture but of course the people who you really want to show this to are going to look at the picture first.

IMHO it would be a far better thing to make your students create the graph on their own given the data rather than see that graph without ever reading the text after it. Although it shows a major point, it doesn't match the text of the report, which as mentioned previously is an EXCELLENT find and should be on the Tech Log best websites list.

1st Jul 2005, 02:51
The cover photo is not from the storms at Bunbury,they are from the US. The interesting part of the report IMHO is the fact that most VMC into IMC accidents happen in the second half of the flight. So if you are in the second half of your journey and the weather is dodgy and you are feeling a strong urge to continue then the alarm bells should be ringing!

1st Jul 2005, 07:27
That's a good one. The section that caught my eye was this;

"A pilot may make a series of good decisions, but that is no automatic protection against a subsequent poor decision putting the safety of the flight at risk. The flight is only ever as safe as the pilotís last decision.

A parallel can be drawn between the importance of a pilot, at an individual or 'micro' level, being continually mindful of the situation they face and similar concepts that have been advocated at a systems safety or 'macro' level... A guiding tenet of this approach is that 'the price of safety is eternal vigilance', the idea that no system can guarantee safety for once and for all.

The application of this approach to the level of the individual pilot would include aspects such as the importance of a pilot not flying to the limit of their abilities, and of not letting past success breed complacency."

4th Jul 2005, 02:22

Itís great to see this work being read and discussed!

Just to clear up a point, the data on page 17 and page 18 are correct. However, the data on page 17 (both in the text and the same data in the figure) relate to all occurrences (accidents, incidents, and Ďnormal operationsí), while the data on page 18 (text only) relate only to accidents. This is mentioned in a footnote on page 18 but obviously the way that the data have been presented is open to misinterpretation (much to my embarrassment as my background is in human factors :-)

To summarise the data, 12.1% of all VFR into IMC occurrences involved a fatality (a pretty amazing statistic), and 75.6% of all VFR into IMC accidents involved a fatality. I guess I would summarise that as being a double whammy. Not only does VFR into IMC have a high fatality rate overall, if it does result in an accident the stats look very bleak indeed.

One interesting thing to come out of the stats I think was that while almost all injuries to pilots or passengers occurred within the VFR into IMC group, the likelihood of the aircraft incurring some degree of damage was actually greatest for the precautionary landing group. That is discussed on the bottom of page 48 and the top of page 49. Iíd be interested to have any feedback as to whether you think the suggested explanation sounds sensible or not.

Getting feedback is great! Thanks. It is very satisfying to see it generating discussion!

If anyone would like a printed copy of the report, or any other ATSB reports, just drop me an email.

Cheers, Richard.

5th Jul 2005, 13:38

I read it to mean that there was a higher chance of damage with a prec search and landing, and this is because you are guaranteed of contacting the ground, but the level of injury was less serious as the velocities involved are relatively low.

There was a higher chance of an accident with inadvertant VFR flight into IMC and if an accident occurred, the injuries were more likely to be very serious or fatal due to higher velocities/extreme attitudes.

But the best approach of all was to adopt a proactive approach, maintain a 'weather eye,' and avoid getting caught in the first place.

8th Jul 2005, 06:56

Yes, I think you are exactly right. The spike of precautionary landings at 60% to 80% flight distance is interesting too I think.

We are planning on using some of this information in the ATSB part of the CASA Safety Seminars later in the year.