Must Read - VFR into IMC Report.

[Sunfish]

ATSB new report released today.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/adverse_weather.pdf

Not sure if this belongs here,

[Aussie Andy]

Thanks - prinitng it ourt and looking forward to reading this evening!

Andy

[Miserlou]

I think this is the point at which DFC (and perhaps myself to some extent) say, "I rest my case!"

[Fuji Abound]

Miserlou

and before DFC joins in -

presumably you havent read the report yet either :confused:

.. .. .. or maybe you are referring to a different case to the one DFC seemed to be pleading??

[mm_flynn]

Miserlou,

The report is very interesting and I think confirms the vast bulk of what everyone in the other thread agreed on (a precautionary landing may bend the plane but you will probably live - loosing control in IMC and you will probably die). With all of the date in the report, the one thing I couldn't find was the behaviour patterns of the 'three decision making groups' analysed by whether they had an IR - as this was the root of the other argument.

Even more interesting from a personal point of view would be an analysis of IR rated pilots being involved in VFR into IMC accidents and incidents and why that happens.

[Miserlou]

I would also like to see the study you mention but think it's results would lead to the military kind of recommendations as mentioned by DFC.

One can perhaps look at commercial accidents to get an idea of the causes. Even commercial and multi-crew operations are not immune to CFIT type accidents which must be seen to be similar to the VFR to IMC accident, just without the necessity of being VMC first.

[IO540]

Sunfish

The report doesn't mean anything relative to the previous discussion in which DFC, and to a lesser extent others, claimed that a pilot with instrument skills should find the VMC to IMC transition lethal.

Let me quote:

Case 1: "ATC advised the pilot to concentrate on keeping the wings level". A pilot with instrument skills?

Case 2: "The private pilot did not hold an instrument rating but had completed three hours of instrument flight training" A pilot with instrument skills? Later: "An aircraft substantially damaged as a result of a precautionary landing"

So, here we have a load of really good material for demonstrating that pilots with instrument skills are going to kill themselves if they enter IMC (NOT!)

The rest of the report is more of the same. Rightly, they are telling pilots to not fly in clouds if they don't know how to.

Send it off to the Daily Mail, I would say.

[Fuji Abound]

IO540 - exactly so.

I don’t see the point in taking what would seem to be a relatively well thought out study and reaching a conclusion that is simply not born out by that the results. Either it suggests you have not read the report or are hoping that others haven’t, and so will reach the conclusion you wanted, not one born out by the facts.

The reports suggests:

That the pilots in the sample performed badly when asked to fly on instruments, and their were significantly more fatalities when they attempted to do so than had they chosen to make a precautionary landing,

that the outcome of precautionary landings for the pilots in the sample was not great with a significant number of injuries and an even more significant amount of damage to the aircraft involved.

That’s it - anything more is conjecture.

The previous discussion referred to and argued by DFC was that instrument rated pilots were unlikely to handle an unexpected transition from VMC to IMC well and should therefore make a precautionary landing when encountering these conditions.

This report does nothing to support that argument.

Why?

The report tells us little or nothing about whether any of the pilots have an instrument rating. I would hazard from reading the examples given that few, if any, had an instrument rating - but I do not know that for sure.


IMHO what the report appears to demonstrate is that non instrument rated pilots (if that is what they were) handled the transition from VMC to IMC far better than DFC and others have argued. That said, there were a significant number of fatalities. I think on the previous thread there was common agreement that on no account should non instrument rated pilots attempt to make a transition into IMC and I whole heartedly support that conclusion.

The report also appears to demonstrate that the outcome of a precautionary landing was likely to result in personal injury, never mind significant damage to the aircraft. IMHO opinion the results were far worse than I would have predicted.

In conclusion I think far from proving the case argued by DFC and others the report tells us a precautionary landing made by an instrument rated pilot is likely to result in personal injury and probably tells us nothing about how an instrument rated pilot would perform transitioning form VMC to IMC. Personally I agree with the comment made by others on the previous thread that if an instrument rated pilot cannot make this transition smoothly he should tear up his instrument ticket and go sue the CAA or FAA his instructor or anyone else who comes to mind for issuing him with a qualification that he patently was not entitled to.

"One can perhaps look at commercial accidents to get an idea of the causes. Even commercial and multi-crew operations are not immune to CFIT type accidents which must be seen to be similar to the VFR to IMC accident, just without the necessity of being VMC first."

With respect, I think this just clouds the issue (pun excused I hope). I think we would all agree the risks of flying on instruments are higher than in VMC - and for all sorts of reasons, not just becasue you cant see! That is a different debate.

"I would also like to see the study you mention but think it's results would lead to the military kind of recommendations as mentioned by DFC."

I wonder on what you rely to enable you to reach that conclusion?

[Sunfish]

With respect to all concerned. The report has confirmed the existence of "Get there itis" statistically.

The majority of VFR into IMC and precautionary landings happen in the final half of the flight. The third group - the weather avoiders, make their decisions very early in their flight.

This confirms that it is a psychological condition of the pilot that is the sole causative factor and not skill level, expereince, aircraft type or whatever as others have suggested.

[Miserlou]

My conclusion or suggestion is based on commercial accidents, especially those where full or proper visual reference has not been fulfilled or maintained, typically on the approach.

I certainly do not agree that flying on instruments is more difficult than by visual reference. It is a very different game but the highest risks do rather appear at the transition from visual reference to instruments and at the transition from instruments back to visual reference.

I use the term 'visual reference' because the visual reference for a full IR-ed pilot are not the same as those for a VFR only pilot.

I am rather inclined to suggest that the situation is not whether an IR'ed pilot can make these transitions safely but whether they will make them safely. I doubt any of them deliberately flew into the ground.

Most likely the results would indeed be similar to the 'misidentification of ground features' and 'failed to monitor flightpath' as often seen in commercial accidents.

As the previous concludes, the psychological condition of the pilot is very relevant. Some of these factors I mentioned on the other thread, plus a big dose of get-home-itis are not conducive to good IMC performance.

[IO540]

The report has confirmed the existence of "Get there itis" statistically.

Whenever I read some "accident study" containing an expression like this, I get very suspicious about the methods they used and the statistical qualifications of the people that did it.

If you plan a trip from A to B on day X, then you WANT to depart from A, you WANT to land at B, and you WANT to do it on day X.

Only a perpetual retired traveller, somebody on the run from the Inland Revenue, or a complete idiot, would wish to do otherwise!

This puts you under pressure to perform as planned but there is nothing wrong with that. That's just being professional. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that the pilot should chuck in their job, sell their house, and spend the money flying, spending the night in a hotel whenever the weather is sub-CAVOK.

The pressure is usually greater when carrying passengers. With some types of passengers (perhaps the worst case is somebody with young kids at home who had to arrange a babysitter so they could fly, and the babysitter can't drive the kids to school) one just cannot fly unless it's a short local trip with zero risk. Otherwise, one ends up buying them airline tickets so they can get back home; I've very nearly had to do that a couple of years ago.

Technically speaking, one should FLY when the conditions are suitable, and NOT FLY when they are not suitable. There is a grey area in the middle (largely because weather forecasting is far from perfect) which is where pilots acquire new experiences and knowledge.

Pilots who fly only on the easy side of the grey area will never learn anything. They will also end up cancelling the great majority of preplanned flights, which will p1ss off most prospective passengers. These pilots tend to get bored and chuck away their PPL pretty quickly.

"Get there itis" is a daft concept which is useless for assessing whether a specific flight should be done.

[mm_flynn]

I think Fuji Abound, IO540 and myself are basically arguing that an IR (IMC) rated pilot in the UK will in general be in the third group of the planned weather avoiders in the case of deteriorating weather. That is that in a non pressured way when faced with declining weather they will elect to go IFR (and have the charts, plates, equipment, and background weather data so they could have flown the whole thing IFR anyhow)rather than continue to scud run, loose control, or declare an emergency. In addition, this transition will be accomplished without any materially different stress than if they had been on an IFR flight plan.

There are some specific circumstances where this might not work and that is what I had hoped to see in the analysis. These might include freezing level below MSA, trying to pick through convective activity, planned low height canyon running or spotting, or something else.

With regard to the comments on CFIT my impression is that this bascially happens for three reasons (misidentifying features on transition from IMC to visual flight, failure to fly the planned flight profile, incorrect instrument setting - i.e. wrong navaid, altimeter setting, etc.) To my knowledge these are not normally intentional and the pilot doesn't realise they have made the error until too late.

The vast majority of VFR into IMC must be reasonably 'intentional' and probably is often driven by get homeitis - what I find disturbing about some of the AOPA data quoted earlier is that people in IMC capable aircraft, with current IRs still scud run and come to grief when it was within their gift at a much earlier point to airfile IFR and continue safely - I would love to see some analysis of why this happens to make sure it is never me.

[Fuji Abound]

“It is a very different game but the highest risks do rather appear at the transition from visual reference to instruments and at the transition from instruments back to visual reference.”


I agree commercial accidents have occurred on the approach segment. I am not aware of many commercial accidents on the departure segment where the transition to IMC is first made.

You associate the risk as being connected with the transition. Why? By definition the transition usually occurs near the ground where there is a risk of CFIT. Transitions may also take place in the cruise, the climb or in the descent prior to the final approach segment. On how may occasions does a transition at this point in the flight result in a loss of control in commercial aircraft? Hardly ever. The majority of commercial FIT result from a loss of situational awareness NOT from a loss of control and therefore have nothing to do with the transition, it just so happens there are more hard objects around at this stage in the flight.

In GA I agree that managing a transition to instruments is a skill that requires perfecting and there is a greater risk than in a commercial aircraft of a loss of control because of the need (usually) to fly manually.


“I certainly do not agree that flying on instruments is more difficult than by visual reference.”

I suppose it all depends on how you define difficult. In any technical pursuit we would usually say you start by learning the easier skills and progress to the more difficult ones. IMHO learning to fly well on instruments was for me harder than learning to fly, in the same way that learning to fly aerobatics was also a harder challenge.

Reports such as this demonstrate yet again the dangers of non qualified pilots attempting to fly on instruments. Almost any other alternative is likely to be better. The report also demonstrates that pilots have a tendency to want to complete their planned journey which as IO540 says is hardly rocket science.

What the report does not deal with is how well (or otherwise) instrument rated pilots would fare by transitioning IMC (in the climb) compared with either scud running or back tracking (assuming this was an option), which was the subject previously debated.

I think it is quite wrong to draw conclusions about how successful Ired pilots would fare drawing on a report such as this which in my opinion provides absolutely no help what so ever on that issue.

That is why as much as you rest your case the jury are unlikely to find in your favour. That doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong, but it does mean the case is certainly not proven!

“I would love to see some analysis of why this happens to make sure it is never me.”

I have a suspicion part of the reason it happens is because of the sort of nonsense put forward by DFC on threads such as this. That is why I feel it is important to show that there is actually no evidence to suggest that an instrument rated pilot is better off scud running or landing than continuing IFR in the conditions previously outlined (should he be unfortunate enough to get himself into that position). I would reiterate that doesn’t necessarily mean DFC is wrong BUT the sort of emotive and unsupported reliance on studies that don’t demonstrate what is claimed has no place in aviation in the same way that claiming filing IFR airborne is illegal.

[IO540]

mm_flynn

I would tend to agree with your opening phrase.

However, then you go onto icing. A smart pilot who has the instrument option will not fly if the 0C level is below the MSA (otherwise he's closing off the climbing option) unless the weather is practically guaranteed VMC (which could be below or above the clouds incidentally) or the clouds are only locally present and the layer is obviously thin (got a deiced prop). Of the flights I scrap in the winter, most get scrapped due to the 0C level below the MSA and IMC being likely below the MSA for much of the route.

Similar with convective activity. I won't go if CBs are forecast (unless their bases are forecast at least 500ft above the MSA, otherwise one has closed off the "flying below them" option), and will divert if a nasty group is showing on the stormscope.

None of this is rocket science. These rules could be written on the back of a fag packet.

If somebody is canyon flying IFR then :confused: :mad:

Just because someone has a current IR doesn't mean they can fly in IMC for real. One can renew a JAA IR entirely in a sim. I know of instructors who haven't been in IMC for years and who have a current IR.

I am sure that most CFITs happening to reasonably experienced pilots happen as a result of loss of situational awareness (i.e. a navigation error). This should happen far less with the wide use of GPS and anyway if the pressure goes up the autopilot comes on without question. I've read books of airliner CFITs and most of them would have never happened with GPS. Perhaps some pilots read too much Pprune and try to stay VMC?

[mm_flynn]

IO 540 - I was 'thinking aloud' about reasons why an IR rated pilot would press on trying to maintain VFR and get into the statistics of a VFR - IMC accident. I have seen accident reports where people try to go through a pass/canyon etc the weather closes in and they hit a wall trying to get out or where they were game spotting in the Mountains at low height entered cloud and hit the cummulo granite. If most of the IR guys who do come to grief are not following the basic rules on the fag pack (which I agree with) then I am pretty relaxed - beacuse I have the fag pack:D But I would be happier to see that as a proper analysis rather than an opinion.

[Fuji Abound]

"I am sure that most CFITs happening to reasonably experienced pilots happen as a result of loss of situational awareness (i.e. a navigation error)."

It is funny that you should make this comment - I nearly raised this issue as well in my earlier post.

I can understand some of the accidents that have occured particularly in the commercial arena with pilots losing situational awareness. For example it can be all too easy to insert the wrong fix into the FMC, and in the same way, in the GA arena following the needles can lead to a loss of situational awareness.

I think one of the most significant developments has been the use of GPS moving maps. I personally fly with two entirely seperate GPS moving map displays. All the time they are working I think it provides an enormous zone of comfort that you are as situational aware as possible.

Concern is regularly expressed about the reliability of GPS systems. I am sure they are capable of going wrong and I am also sure they do fail. I would not want to fly without the ability of cross checking them with the VORs, DME, GS or NDB BUT I can only add that I have yet to have a GPS fail on me or report an inaccurate position (not a single time on either unit) whereas in the same time I have had one VOR fail and had on numerous occasions flagged VORs for no apparent reason never mind the usual problems with reliable NDB reception. I think that is a pretty good record whilst all the time giving me far more situational awareness ability.

[DFC]

This study has little to do with the original debate because as everyone has already pointed out there was no study of how many pilots held IRs.

What one has to remember is that outside the UK generally only IR holders can fly IFR and IFR flights require clearances and remain within controlled airspace. Thus few IR rated pilots would depart VFR unless they can complete the flight VFR and if the weather is not suitable for VFR at the planning stage they will file IFR from the start or file a Y or Z plan.

Generally speaking, outside the UK having to call up and suddenly go IFR on a VFR flight can be the same as towing a banner saying "I did not do my pre-flight planning properly"!

IN the UK, most flights operate in class G and even the accident investigation people can be unable to fully determine if the flight was operated VFR or IFR or VMC or IMC at various stages during the flight.

---

IO540,

Pilots who fly only on the easy side of the grey area will never learn anything. They will also end up cancelling the great majority of preplanned flights, which will p1ss off most prospective passengers

Are we not talking about private flights here. Flying for fun, pleasure and personal enjoyment. The type of flying you seem to be refering to sounds very like commercial flying and commercial pressure. If the weather isn't going to be suitable then the passengers simply have to accept the fact no debate.

Pilots who remain on the easy side of the grey area will probably live longer. I fear that the learning you talk of is learning by one's own mistakes or even worse, thinking that just because one got away with it this time one will get away with it again.

Your statements about how you avoid adverse weather in IMC show that you could benifit from some of the free online courses that are available......specifically the comments;

Of the flights I scrap in the winter, most get scrapped due to the 0C level below the MSA and IMC being likely below the MSA for much of the route. and more worrying;

I won't go if CBs are forecast (unless their bases are forecast at least 500ft above the MSA, otherwise one has closed off the "flying below them" option

What idiot ever flies below a CB at any level? Surely you have made a typing error here?

-------

Fuji,

that the outcome of precautionary landings for the pilots in the sample was not great with a significant number of injuries and an even more significant amount of damage to the aircraft involved

But no fatalities!

When in deep deep do do who cares about bending the aircraft provided we all survive.

Unfortunately there is another flaw with the data used for the precautionary landing study - airraft that complete an uneventful safe precautionary landing and then either safely fly the aircraft out or remove the undamaged aircraft by road do not file accident reports even in Australia.......thus the numbers are not quite true.

Of course the same can be said of the many pilots who fly into IMC in the UK even without IMC or IR ratings and manage to survive without incident - they rarely report their error and perhaps if every single pilot with no qualifications who flew into IMC even for the briefist period was included in the stats, one could claim that the figures show an IR or IMC is not required for IMC flight!

Personally I agree with the comment made by others on the previous thread that if an instrument rated pilot cannot make this transition smoothly he should tear up his instrument ticket and go sue the CAA or FAA his instructor or anyone else who comes to mind for issuing him with a qualification that he patently was not entitled to

Now you are talking some sense......they should sue for being given an IR without having the ability to check the weather both pre-flight and enroute, set appropriate weather limits and make basic in-flight decisions regarding their chosen plan in a timely manner.

---

The one thing that the report clearly states is that the safest pilots were the ones who;

Did proper pre-flight and inflight checks of the wather and made early decisions to change or update the plan.

This is the same as those who say they plan every flight as an IFR flight - in an appropriate aircraft and have maps, approach plates, appropriate weathe and appropriate fuel planning etc but may be VFR for the whole route.

All along I have said that these pilots will not have nay serious problem with a transition from VMC to IMC - it is prepared for.

The IR pilots identified in the AOPA report and who will probably jkill themselves are the ones who paste themselves into a corner and either unexpectidely or intentionally unplanned enter IMC usually with no IFR charts, no idea of where icing may occur, how they are going to navigate, where controlled airspace is or how on earth they are going to survive the situation......25% of them won't!

Regards,

DFC

[Flyin'Dutch']

The IR pilots identified in the AOPA report and who will probably jkill themselves are the ones who paste themselves into a corner and either unexpectidely or intentionally unplanned enter IMC usually with no IFR charts, no idea of where icing may occur, how they are going to navigate, where controlled airspace is or how on earth they are going to survive the situation......25% of them won't!

I appreciate that statistics and percentages are difficult for some to come to grips with.

I take it though that you understand that not 25% of IR holders come to their untimely end by continuing CFIT due to the transition from VMC into IMC?

[IO540]

mm_flynn

Yes, the problem with GA CFITs is the lack of a CVR/FDR so all that is left is a radar trace and wreckage, and a load of speculation.

Thankfully the data is extremely thin which is great for the safety of flight and very very bad for those paid to write these reports.

So, no shortage of opinions for the foreseeable future :O

Getting back to your point about IR pilots having CFITs though. The CAA license issue data suggests less than 1% of PPLs (known to the CAA i.e. not FAA IRs) have a JAA IR (some 10% have the IMCR) and most of those 1% are older pilots (because JAA has all but killed the PPL/IR scene). So we are looking at a tiny group, no matter how you work the numbers. However, looking at IRs I know who fly for real, most of them are FAA IRs. These are a separate group on which there is little data. Most of them fly IFR (airways) routinely, with little opportunity for CFITs, but they do lots of hours (100-500/year). So, again, very skewed data which cannot be analysed without looking at the type of pilot experience.

As for DFC, flying under CBs is OK. Lots of people fly under an overcast sky with embedded CBs. Bumpy, and one may need good door seals to keep the water out, but it's safe enough if one is well below it. I still like to know what DFC actually does for a living and what, if anything, he flies.

[Miserlou]

Fuji,
I am not talking about flying into hills. I'm talking about that point where you have something which you think you recognize right around minima, or duriing a circling approach, or through patchy cloud at night. You know, the urge to drop through a whole when you can see the surface.

These are conditions where although you may be manouvering visually (navigation) your actual control of the aeroplane is only possible by reference to the instruments.

We need to further diferentiate 'controlled' flight into terrain with 'loss of control'. What I can read is that both are being discussed where only one of them is meant.

There are also plenty of incidents of departure incidents although you may need to include biz jets and air taxi to find them.

[DFC]

Flyin'Dutch',

You are spot on there.

AOPA identified that some 25% of the fatal VFR into IMC flight pilots hels IRs.

Thus 100% of those IR pilots identified in the AOPA study killed themselves by going VFR into IMC.

One could also say that 75% of the pilots did not hold IRs.

Thus 100% of those non-IR pilots identified in the AOPA study killed them selves by going VFR into IMC.

AOPA did not spend much time counting all the pilots that may have survived......it doesn't make for good safety stats.

:D :D :D

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

DFC

?Thus 100% of those IR pilots identified in the AOPA study killed themselves by going VFR into IMC.

Did you know that 98.7% of the people killed on the UK roads in 2004 had milk with their breakfast? So, having milk with one's breakfast is really deadly.

[Fuji Abound]

"These are conditions where although you may be manouvering visually (navigation) your actual control of the aeroplane is only possible by reference to the instruments."

Ah, now I understand your point. I agree it is readily possible for pilots to fall into the trap of attempting to transition to flying visually in the circumstances you describe. With respect however I do not think this supports the claim that transitioning in the climb from VMC to IMC for an IRated pilot is as dangerous as made out, but rather identifies a different problem.

"The IR pilots identified in the AOPA report"

Which ones were they then?




DFC - I am sorry but you are at it again. As Flyin'Dutch' points out you conclude your post with a sensationalist statement about what will happen to 25% of IRated pilots. You have no evidence to support your claim and experience will tell many of us you are simply wrong.

[mm_flynn]

I went back to the AOPA reports to remind myself of the context of the statistic that has been quoted. It was a short report with quoted examples rather than the fairly statistical report that started this thread.

From the examples the report is classifying a range of things into the VFR into IMC category (some that I have no idea why they are in the report) For example:

Flight cancels IFR plan with airport in sight while circling to land (at night in foggy conditions) looses contact with airport and CFIT. (IFR accident)

IFR flight reports 'standby we have a problem' controller vectors away from rising terrain and the pilot looses 1000 ft in the turn then stabilizes not following further vectors and CFIT. (IFR accident)

Mooney pilot with IR but not current sets out at night in low cloud with fog and is seen scud running at 150 ft before impacting rising terrain (in an environment similar to the lake district) (VFR into IMC)

There are of course many examples of VFR pilot enters cloud, looses control and bits fall out of the sky. (VFR into IMC)

With the range of incidents that have been included in the analysis I am not surprised that a significant number (something like 20%) of pilots had IRs - because I think the report would be more accurately entitled accidents which occurred in IMC conditions. As such the stats in this report around accidents involving IR rated pilots has little bearing on the general discussion of VFR into IMC accidents.

[slim_slag]

Thus few IR rated pilots would depart VFR unless they can complete the flight VFR and if the weather is not suitable for VFR at the planning stage they will file IFR from the start or file a Y or Z plan.

Generally speaking, outside the UK having to call up and suddenly go IFR on a VFR flight can be the same as towing a banner saying "I did not do my pre-flight planning properly"!


Absolute nonsense.

[Miserlou]

Re. filing IFR inflight.

I used to do it whenever my filed route was not accepted by Eurocontrol. My filed routes were invariably VFR departure airfields switchng to IFR at the earliest convenient time.
Never had a problem getting what I wanted either.

[Julian]

Agree with Slim Slag, absolute cobblers.

I have to turn round in VFR conditions due to turbulence through a pass I had intended to fly down, the alternate route was not suitable for a VFR flight and hence got a pop up IFR clearance. I am sure thats just one example of having to go IFR mid-flight.

Julian.

[DFC]

Julian,

That is not the same. That is an example of cancelling a route and diverting because (I hope) the wather was nothing like what was forecast as often happens in the mountains.

Sadly, the cases where I use the term "suddenly going VFR to IFR and hanging out a sign saying 'did not brief propely' usually are the cases wher the VFR flight from a to b suddenly has to go IFR in order to get to b despite the fact that the weather was always forecast below decent VMC for that route.

To use a good example, many UK pilots who use Le Touquet complain of and the ATC units involved in the area now also claim to have 3 flight rules;

VFR, IFR and BFR (British Flight Rules)

BFR = filed VFR despite METAR and TAF reporting low cloud and poor visibility and insist on amking some form of "visual approach" that seems to follow the IAPs and are unable to route via Visual routes despite claiming to be VFR!

-----------
Miserlou, Re. filing IFR inflight.

I used to do it whenever my filed route was not accepted by Eurocontrol. My filed routes were invariably VFR departure airfields switchng to IFR at the earliest convenient time.
Never had a problem getting what I wanted either.

I must remind my passengers during the next delay that part of the reason for ATC delays are private flights who can't be bothered to comply with the rules!...............Statements like that only justify the reasons for more VAT on AVGAS and other onerous restrictions on GA.........you may beat the system for yourself but you muck it up for everyone else! :(

However, having said that, you are not desribing the flight where you do not have any form of prepared plan for the IFR portion.

A pre-planned Zfr flight is not the same as a Vfr flight that has to unexpectidely and unplanned go IFR in airspace without any guarantee of communications or navigation or radar assistance.

Regards,

DFC

[Flyin'Dutch']

I must remind my passengers during the next delay that part of the reason for ATC delays are private flights who can't be bothered to comply with the rules!...............

To suggest that slots are caused by private flights congesting the system with pop up clearances is both untrue and polarising.

Wot a load of tosh.

DFC, if you have nothing sensible to say maybe you can do us all a favour and refrain from posting.

[slim_slag]

DFC hasn't realised the forum description has changed

[Fuji Abound]

DFC

I just cant get to grips with your posts.

You seem to have a grasp of some of the technical concepts but some of the other comments you make just dont seem to add up.

You infer you are a commercial pilot, IR examiner and of long experience.

It would be really interesting to know what your current involvements in the GA and commercial worlds are as I think that would help us put your posts in context and add to the debate.