Flying into the sea

[QDMQDMQDM]

This happens to vfr pilots subject to 'blue out' or very hazy conditions, but the only cases I know of are John F. Kennedy junior into a sunset on a hazy evening offshore in New England and the Scillies helicopter.

How big a danger is this really? How many cases have there been? What are the best tactics to deal with it on a theoretically vfr day? I find going low -- 500-1000ft -- helps as you can see texture in the ocean.

All thoughts appreciated.

QDM

[bar shaker]

I find keeping an eye on the altimeter prevents this from happening.

[QDMQDMQDM]

I find keeping an eye on the altimeter prevents this from happening.

Yes, exactly. Can you really get into an unrecognised unusual attitude paying attention to airspeed, altimeter, vsi and the picture outside, even as a non-IMC pilot? The books and mags say yes. But how often does it happen? Put it another way: how scared should I be?

QDM

[bar shaker]

Fly considerably higher than 500-1000ft... have a target level, say 4000-4500 and stay within your band, use GPS and follow the track line, don't try too hard to fly the aircraft. Without a horizon, its easy to end up with PIO due to making tiny corrections all the time. Just relax and correct any deviations once get beyond limits you have set yourself (eg vsi 200ft/min - compass 10deg off course).

Remember the more height you have, the more time you have to manage an emergency, should one occur. Over water, your want all the time you can get.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Good advice. I am particularly asking as I want to do the Corsica - SoF crossing in July.

[dirkdj]

The danger is loosing the natural horizon.

Quite likely on a hazy summer day over the sea. An inexperienced pilot will end up in a spiral dive if he is not current on instruments. The airplane has a natural tendency to end up in a spiral dive if left alone.

Once a spiral dive is allowed to develop beyond 45° bank, the poor pilot will see the rate of descent and try to stop the descent by pulling back on the stick. This will make the spiral dive even worse, etc etc.

There was an accident near Ostend where a Nord 1100? (Me 208) was flown into the sea with sightseeing passengers on a hazy summer day. There was also an Air India 747 lost in a spiral dive accident.

Dirk

[QDMQDMQDM]

I am just wondering how common it really is in a non-instrument rated pilot who is aware of the dangers.

[gcolyer]

Unless you loose your Altimeter/ASI or you Compass/DI i don't see how it is possible (unless some control surface failure occurs). I don't have my IMC yet (booked for August), yet i fly at least 3 times a week from the Isle of Man to somewhere (Newtonards, Dublin, Liverpool, Bristol...) quiet often there is no horizon and plenty of haze. For me it is common sense to look atthe instruments (usualy ASi and DI) i find if those two are saying what you expect then all is well (obviously i check the other insturments). I think it is logical to say if your airspeed is not right then the plane is doing something that is most likely going to ruin your day if you dont sort it out.

[bencoulthard]

with your altimeter set to 1013 how can this be?
qdm i think you should be fairly safe as long as you have an IQ above 3

Ben (know nothing) Coulthard

[Saab Dastard]

Ben, as a fairly low-hours PPL without any IMC training (beyond the minimum), I avoid flying in hazy conditions - over land or sea - for the lack of horizon.

I have flown at about 4,000' with an instructor in real clag - no horizon at all, virtual white-out looking straight ahead. It was only possible to remain straight & level on instruments, and without IMC training and experience I would have been struggling to remain straight & level, let alone navigate and communicate!

With the FI looking after the Nav & Comms - and helping to monitor my height, speed and bank, it was just possible for me to fly safely.

Yes, I am sure that with more training and experience I will be able to fly safely single pilot IMC, but I heartily agree with those who say that VFR-only pilots - and those not current in IMC - should avoid these conditions.

It's just that so much of your capacity is taken up with unfamiliar instrument flying that any little fly in the ointment can create an overload, leading to loss of control.

SD

[RatherBeFlying]

The minimum equipment for night flying includes an AH and DG as you can and do encounter IMC-like conditions.

Yes, I've practiced needle, ball and airspeed, but the IFR accident record in the US shows that vacuum failures result in a number of loss of control accidents every year.

Me, I would not choose to be over water without said equipment unless land was in sight ahead.

I very much like to have enough height to be within gliding distance of shore. It also gives you a bit of time to put out a Mayday or correct mistakes.

[IO540]

I think the Kennedy thing was flight into IMC, which just happened to take place at night so he could not see the stuff coming.

Night flight, and hazy summer weather, is often IMC in all but name. They don't tell you that when you get your PPL :O One needs instrument training to fly usefully, even if one is technically 100% VFR.

[QDMQDMQDM]

hazy summer weather, is often IMC in all but name. They don't tell you that when you get your PPL One needs instrument training to fly usefully, even if one is technically 100% VFR.

I am trying to figure out if that is really true, or if it is an old wives' tale, hence canvassing opinions and looking for evidence of accidents caused by it.

I did Dover-Calais once in very poor vis, but was down low enough to see the water and had no probs at all. I thought at the time I would have been OK a bit higher too.

[drauk]

bencoulthard wrote:
with your altimeter set to 1013 how can this be?

I think you're confused. You might want to read up the appropriate section in your text books.

[IO540]

QDM

I know I often write tongue in cheek but it's almost true.

It depends on how high you are.

In a 1 mile vis, 6000ft up (funny how many people ask a pilot how many feet is 1 mile - ever thought about that? ;) ;) ) you obviously won't see the surface at all, but it isn't quite IMC because there will be a lot more light above than below.

In more realistic conditions, say 3000m vis (legal for a UK PPL) and 5000ft up, you will see very little of the surface, and no texture if it is water. Again, not quite IMC.

In both above cases it will be hard to keep the wings level and thus hold a heading. You have to relax and treat it like instrument flight. I've done tons of flying like that, under VFR. I recall one 5hr flight right across France which was entirely legally VFR (even, if one wants to be pedantic, in sight of surface) but I hardly saw a thing. With a failed autopilot and thus very tiring.

The standard PPL training solution to poor vis is to fly low, but that has its dangers too of course. Much more so if the poor vis is due to heavy rain, in which case you could be well below MSA and still not see a damn thing.

That is why some level of instrument capability is required. Each to their own of course, and no doubt many (especially of the "traditional" crowd) will jump on me after this, but a pilot who wants to fly real distances does need IFR flying and navigation capability - even if he is legally limited to VFR flight rules.

I've flown 800nm legs across Europe, but even in the UK a lot of summer flying would have been impossible without instrument capability.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is a very real phenomena and can be dangerous. As already mentioned JFK jr is a prime example of what can happen even if the circumstances were slightly different, the end result is the same.

Spatial disorientation is a very odd sensation and a hard one to rail against unless you are prepared. It is very unsettling and you must force yourself to believe your instruments. Not easy when the senses you rely on every day are screaming at you that something is wrong.

Practice and being forearmed are the only ways to try and combat this problem.

Whilst it happens less frequently to me now, I do occasionally get the "leans" and that's despite having a fair few hundred hours in actual IMC. (Not just under IFR).

Get a bit of time under the hood and make sure when you are flying in these conditions that you get the a/c well trimmed out and don't over control. try and keep something for reference and remember haze is always worse when flying into sun, if it all gets too much, look in another direction, you may have a better chance of finding something resembling a horizon, just be aware of false horizons, they really can be disorientating.

[Final 3 Greens]

Flying cross channel, I'm okay with an indistinct horizon, so long as I can see the sea on either side, and keep the wings level through peripheral vision.

If I met VFR conditions as described by IO540, I would turn back swiftly, since I don't have the instrument skills necessary to manage the situation. I have a night rating (so not freaked by flying without the full visual picture), but no IMCR.

QDM, I'd give it a try and if you are uncomfortable, turn back into the conditions that were acceptable before.

IMHO you are spot on in considering the risks and working towards a rational decision.

[QDMQDMQDM]

F3G,

I think that's the key: some kind of distinction between sea and air, even if not straight ahead. I prefer flying lower in these situations. Not infrequently, I go cross-channel in company with other aircraft, so flying lower is not such a problem. On a hazy day, I think you can almost always go low enough to gain texture on the sea's surface, can't you?

QDM

[UV]

QDM, sorry, no the lower you go the more dangerous it is.

The real problem is when the sea is SO calm and the Viz SO poor that the two become one in effect. It is similar to "Glassy landings" in Seaplanes.

There have been numerous accidents in these condditions. Ones I immediately recall are the Scilly Isles S 61 Helo that crashed into the sea with the loss of 17 or so lives and a Hawk that ran into the sea at 500+ knots off Gibralter and luckilly recovered into Gib with only a damaged aileron.

These conditions should be avoided at all costs.
UV

[QDMQDMQDM]

If it's glassy water, yes, but true glassy water at sea is much less common than on a lake.

[Whirlybird]

Spatial disorientation is a very odd sensation and a hard one to rail against unless you are prepared. It is very unsettling and you must force yourself to believe your instruments. Not easy when the senses you rely on every day are screaming at you that something is wrong.

The most sensible comment so far on this thread. Some of the things people are saying really scare the hell out of me.

Spatial disorientation can happen very easily over water. It's OK while you have some sort of horizon, and it helps if you have a ship to follow, or some other means of visual reference. Without that, if there's no horizon and the sky blends into the sea, you really won't know which way is up. Now, it's all very well to say rely on your instruments, and you MUST, but as SAS said, it's not easy. If your senses are screaming at you that you're in a steep right hand turn, and you feel as though you're hanging out of your seat, while your instruments say you're flying straight and level, you will really struggle to follow those instruments. Doing it for a few minutes may just be OK. But if you have a long water crossing, you'll be tired, you'll have to listen and talk on the radio, and navigate, all of them while you feel as though the aircraft is in a very odd attitude which you desperately want to correct. That's why instrument flying is so difficult, and needs training and constant practice. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't tried it, believe me!

I've flown across water in something like these sort of conditions, though I don't like it. But I've always vowed to turn back at the slightest hint of disorientation, because if it starts to happen, it can only get worse. :(

[RatherBeFlying]

QDM -- Kennedy went in from low altitude. If he had been up higher and had the bank insidiously increasing and dropping the nose, he might have clued in to the noise of increasing airspeed and recovered. That's what height gives you in this situation -- room to recover from mistakes.

The distraction of wife plus sister-in-law dragging him into conversation and distracting him from the vital task of keeping the wings level is in my opinion the trigger to above.

Please do find a hazy day and get some instrument dual.

[Dr Eckener]

The standard PPL training solution to poor vis is to fly low

I think you will find this is demonstrated rather than 'taught', in order that people understand the dangers of doing it.

You should always fly as high as you can in a single over water to reduce the distance between land where losing the noise will result in getting wet.

[IO540]

Some of the things people are saying really scare the hell out of me

Which things in particular?

But I've always vowed to turn back at the slightest hint of disorientation, because if it starts to happen, it can only get worse

If it simply always got worse, every instrument pilot would be dead now. The solution is to focus on the instruments - the horizon in particular.

You either fly by visual references (which, if you are a non-heli-IR helicopter pilot I'd guess you do, but rotary instrument flight is very different to fixed wing) or you fly on instruments. The problem with the former method (sticking to nice visibility) is that you can't fly in a lot of nice English summers.

That's why IMHO everybody should get instrument training, both aircraft control and navigation.

[Whirlybird]

Which things in particular?


"I find keeping an eye on the altimeter prevents this from happening."

"Unless you lose your Altimeter/ASI or you Compass/DI i don't see how it is possible"

"i think you should be fairly safe as long as you have an IQ above 3"

And anything else which implies that instrument flying is easy and doesn't need training and practice.

If it simply always got worse, every instrument pilot would be dead now. The solution is to focus on the instruments - the horizon in particular.


I was referring to non-instrument rated pilots; I thought that was obvious, but maybe it wasn't. And for the record, I have a PPL(A), and I know what flying across the sea in a f/w aircraft is like, and that is what I was talking about.

There are accidents due to poor vis every flying season, whether over the sea or not. And still non-instrument rated pilots think it only happens to other people, and that they're different. That's why thoughtless and uninformed comments on threads like this scare me.

[IO540]

OK, but the other side of the coin is that instrument flight is not any kind of rocket science. The very basic basics, enough to control and navigate, are just a small subset of the IMC Rating, and they will stop you getting killed.

We are talking about flying in haze, not doing NDB holds in the bottom of a CB :O

A lot of people get a bit elitist about this stuff, suggesting one should never fly in such conditions without an official instrument qualification. I would say that something less than that is actually pretty good, and that everybody should go and get it.

[gcolyer]

Whirlybird

I see you flagged up one of my comments:

"Unless you lose your Altimeter/ASI or you Compass/DI i don't see how it is possible"


Are you saying you are not screwed if you lost all 4 of those instruments while in a haze where you have no horizon and you cannot differentiate between the sky and the sea?

Obviously you have the AI to go by, but i would imagine if you lost your other instruments you would loose that as well.

As i mentioned in my post i dont yet have my IMC and i have flown accross the irish sea in haze with no horizon a number of times, i guess it is one of the downsides of living on the Isle of Man. I keep a regular scan on the Altimeter and DI, backed up with ASI and mag compass. Once you near the coast you usualy then get some form of horizon, if not you are most likely in fog in which case it is not really VMC anyway.

What I am trying to say is if you know how to read those instruments i don't see how you can get in to a mess, even with out IMC or IR.

My advise to anyone who runs in to bad haze over sea is to not look out the window and trust the instruments as you will end up with Spatial disorientation. I might get shot down now for saying don't look out the window, but with no IR or IMC a low hour pilot (like myself) could end up did fairly quick. if you keep your ears out on the radio you should have a fairly good idea of any traffic that is close by.

As some of you have said, i can highly recommend going up with a pilot that has plenty of IMC/IR hours and see how you get on.

[Say again s l o w l y]

The point is not what equipment you have onboard, but how able you are to understand it and make use of it.
An unqualified and inexperienced person will still smack into the sea no matter what machine they are in.

If however, you know what you are doing, have been trained properly and are in regular practice then as long as you have a DI and an Altimeter you should be fine. If you aren't then having a whizz bang IFR setup is about as much use as t*ts on a bull.

[Fuji Abound]

Unless you have experienced spatial disorientation I doubt it is either possible to describe accurately or to rationalise. However, I suspect every pilot who operates on instruments has been there at some time or other. Perhaps some are also more susceptible.

Personally I find entering IMC very shortly after take off whilst still in the climb and turning en route is often the trigger. The first few times it requires discipline to "beleive" the instruments and ignore everything your "brain" is telling you.

Spatial disorientation should never be taken lightly and you should expect and be aware that it will happen on instruments.

[172driver]

Night flight, and hazy summer weather, is often IMC in all but name. They don't tell you that when you get your PPL :O One needs instrument training to fly usefully, even if one is technically 100% VFR.

IO540 is absolutely correct. A hazy day over the sea more often than not is effectively flying on instruments, even if you're technically VFR by a wide margin. I'd go as far as to say it's worse than a night flight, because at night you expect to lose the horizon, on a clear (at t/o) day you don't - but you do. Believe the instruments and NOT your brain. Easy on the controls and be as high as you can - which, in any case, you should always be (if possible) for an over-water crossing in a SE.

[Andy_RR]

I wonder why 'instrument flying' comes so easy to some?

Early on in my initial instrument training for my PPL(A), my instructor made me don the foggles and look down for a few minutes while she gave the controls a good workout. Only after I had a hefty dose of the leans did she hand over control - what a scary experience!

Also, just before I did my GFT, I had to do 1.5 hours more instrument flight. My instructor took me into true IMC for much of it. It was quite a while since I'd done any, so my scan was pathetic, chasing all the instruments around all over the place. Only when my instructor got me back concentrating on the AH did the VSI and ASI look after themselves.

It made me appreciate why currency is important to instrument flying. It also makes me wonder how gcoyler can fly effectively IMC without reference to an AH - how do you do it?

Also, what do you do in the case of full/significant instrument failure? My instructor said that dropping your airspeed and deploying flaps can improve hands-off stability if you lose all horizon references, easing your workload. He urged me to try it VMC sometime at altitude, which I've yet to do. Any comments on this?

A

[Whirlybird]

OK, but the other side of the coin is that instrument flight is not any kind of rocket science. The very basic basics, enough to control and navigate, are just a small subset of the IMC Rating, and they will stop you getting killed.

IO540,
You have an IR, and I think you are fairly current with instrument flying. Have you maybe forgotten what it's like for that not to be the case? The PPL(A) includes 5 hours of instrument flying anyway. Does that qualify pilots to fly in severe haze, do you think? Perhaps after several months or years of not doing so?

It was quite a while since I'd done any, so my scan was pathetic, chasing all the instruments around all over the place.

That's what can easily happen when you're not trained and current.

gcolyer,
I'm saying you can be screwed without losing those instruments! YOU may be able to fly in haze, but there's haze and haze - from just a lack of clear horizon to virtually IMC. I'm not sure what conditions you're flying in, but if you can cope, all well and good. But to suggest that ANY pilot can fly safely on instruments is inaccurate and irresponsible, in my view.


The point is not what equipment you have onboard, but how able you are to understand it and make use of it.
An unqualified and inexperienced person will still smack into the sea no matter what machine they are in.

SAS says it like it is...or like it very easily can be.

[gcolyer]

I have the luxury of an experienced CPL/IR/FI mate whI have been up with quiet a lot. As he knows i have my IMC booked for august he is giving me some hints and tips (more like lessons). A lot of the time i have flown with him he cover over some instruments (usualy DI and AI). Hopefully that explains my ease with Instrument flight.

As for not flying on the AI, I do. I just trust the Altimeter, ASI and compass. I have no ideas if that is good or bad i just know if i trust those i am fairly safe.

I have a question for you experienced IR/IMC people.

Some people say AI (Attitude Indicator) orthers say AH (Artificial Horzion)

Which is the correct term. From my IMC study AI seems to be the one.

A good experience of Spatial disorientation my Instructor taught me while on my PPL course was this.

Close your eyes (no cheating) and do a left and right 180 degree level turn. When you are convinced you are back to straight and level open your eyes. Not recommend without a capable saftey pilot and plenty of altitude. The results of this test can be pretty shocking.

[IO540]

Whirly

I don't think I ever said, and certainly didn't mean to say, that lack of instrument currency is not a problem. In fact, to the annoyance of many here, I have often made the point that this is the biggest enemy of the IMC Rating, and the schools don't tell you this when they take your money; they don't explain that you need a budget to fly at least double the UK PPL annual hours (which I gather is itself about 10-20hrs/year) not to mention the problems in getting into something suitable for it.

However, instrument flying to the extent required to fly and navigate straight and level is not at all hard. You could teach a 10 year old child to do it in no time at all - use the AI, the altimeter and fly a heading. What makes instrument training so brain numbing is the sheer workload during the training; you don't get a moment's rest and then the examiner fails one instrument after another and then he gets you to fly a VOR approach with a circle to land... etc etc In comparison instrument flight on a hazy summer day is a piece of cake.

The aircraft equipment does make a difference too, even though it is not "proper" to say that. Even a simple autopilot (wings level + heading hold) cuts down cockpit workload by perhaps 90%. And a decent GPS makes navigation a piece of cake.

gcolyer

"attitude indicator" is the correct term nowadays I think, but "horizon" or "artificial horizon" is what it always used to be called and still is called by many.

Your example about closing one's eyes is unsuprising - a 25000hr pilot would be out of control within seconds if he did that.

Peoples' susceptibility varies though. I almost never get leans or anything like that myself but then my sense of balance is rubbish. I think that people who can stand on one leg while doing up their shoelaces and do this with their eyes shut will probably suffer worst from instrument flight.

[Maxflyer]

I have an IMC, which thankfully I have never (on my own) used in anger, however, I found whilst I was using foggles during my training I was happy to deal with the instruments alone, as I had absolutely no other close up or distant reference point. It was only on an occasion when on a return flight to my home airfield with my IMC instructor, we did some flying through cloud for real. Suddenly relying solely on instruments became a very unsettling experience. The fact that I had my other close up references such as side windows, cockpit roof and the instructor next to me and yet no outside reference, all seemed very claustrophobic and unnerving. I kept checking the AI and even though it said I was straight and level my body felt that I was leaning slightly to the left. The airspeed was steady, the compass/DI said that I was holding my direction, yet my body told me differently. I was experiencing spatial disorientation and it took some getting used to. I overcame that and learnt to rely on my instruments and soon got used to flying IMC (for brief periods), but it was very spooky to begin with. I guess if you take your eye off the ball (literally) and are not concentrating sufficiently you could lose height quite easily without realising it was happening. A VFR pilot flying in hazy conditions who is unused to making good instrument scans could miss the signs!
with your altimeter set to 1013 how can this be?
qdm i think you should be fairly safe as long as you have an IQ above 3
Ben, you will find lots of people on here happy to give you sound advice in your quest for a PPL. Don't be so quick to make pronouncements unless you really do know what you mean. Your statement shows a distinct lack of understanding! Not criticism, just a friendly pointer.

[dublinpilot]

qdm*3,

You are getting varying different answers. The problem is that haze is so widely defined. As I understand it the defination of haze is viz of 1km to 9999m. However people have their own definations, and their own assumptions.

I suspect that if people said what their own definations was, then most people here would probably find that they were in agreement about the question you asked.

I am a VFR only pilot, with no instrument qualifications. I have made a number of sea crossing, in varying conditions. The worst vis I had was 6km. (Flew this at 3 or 4k ft.) This was done with two pilots, and a split workload.

At 6km the forward viz is largely useless, as most of the surface forward is hidden under the nose. The only view you can get of the surface is by looking out of the side windows downwards. I wouldn't attempt 6km across water by myself.

On the other hand, 10km across water isn't such a big deal. Don't climb so high that you have to look out the side window to see the surface. But so long as you can see surface while looking forward you should be fine. The flying will be a little more difficult than normal, but manageable.

15km+ No issues whatsoever.

That's my experience for what it's worth.

dp

[JW411]

This whole problem is about a lack of a clearly defined horizon.

I was a training captain on 4-engined aircraft in Aden 40 years ago. There were only two seasons - winter and summer. And so it was that we spent 6 months flying off runway 26 and 6 months flying off runway 08.

I am now speaking specifically about night flying but it is a similar problem. After take-off on runway 26 there were loads of visual clues with all the lights of Aden in front of you.

Then suddenly the season changed and after take-off from 08 was inky black and over the sea with no horizon. Despite comprehensive pre-flight briefings about this phenomena I had two fully-qualified F/Os who lost it and headed for the ocean in a descending turn.

Fortunately for them the F/E and I preferred scuba diving by daylight!

[QDMQDMQDM]

Thanks, dublinpilot,

Very useful experience of the kind I was after.

QDM

[Say again s l o w l y]

I would still caution about flying below around 4-5K, simply because of the fact you are in a single. If I clarify my earlier comments with viz limits.

Below around 5000m it really is quite difficult to fly purely on outside references in haze. If the viz is forecast below 10K but you are flying into sun, then you will have similar problems.

If you keep a good scan and are prepared, there is no reason why your trip shouldn't be successful, but I personally would still be flying as high as I possibly could whilst over water, rather than trying to find a horizon that may or maynot be present.

[Whirlybird]

I don't think I ever said, and certainly didn't mean to say, that lack of instrument currency is not a problem...........However, instrument flying to the extent required to fly and navigate straight and level is not at all hard.

IO540,
It was the second comment I was disagreeing with, not the first. No, it's not hard per se. But if you're inexperienced, it becomes hard as soon as you get tired. And that can happen after a very short period, which could be exacerbated by nervousness due to being over water and able to see...absolutely nothing. And ATC are sure to want a position report from you at just that time, adding to the workload. I'm not saying it's impossible; it's not; I've done it. Just to be very cautious, that's all. There's more to this sort of situation than at first appears.

[IO540]

OK, I agree.

The best way to do position reports is a GPS with the route programmed in it :O In certain places abroad the local FIS asks for enough position reports to do one's head in, almost like London Info do when they smell a student on his QXC :O Best way is to just read it off the GPS.

[Hampshire Hog]

Having read all that has been said in this thread, I have to say that I think my club has struck a sound balance. They require 5 hours instrument training before we are allowed to cross the sea to Europe. Not so hard as an IMC, but clearly intended to address the potential spacial disorientation in haze.

Whirly, I'm not sure where you get the idea that you do 5 hours during the PPL. I think 1 hour of instrument awareness is more like it.

HH

[Parkbremse]

@HH
for a JAA PPL it is requiered to 5 hours of imc training, which should enable you to fly straight and level in clouds and to fly a shallow 180° turn to get out of the clouds. At least thats the way in germany, however it might be a bit different in the uk, as we have no such thing as an imc rating.


On the topic, i agree with IO540. Basic flying in imc is certainly not rocket science and imho the skill can be picked up pretty fast. And if you want to do any decent touring in europe you either have to bring a lot of time waiting for good weather or be able to decide what is flyable or not, whereas flyable can mean to complete a portion of the flight in technically vrf, but effectively imc, conditions. The key is to be well prepared so you are not inadvertently caught in conditions you cannot cope with. If you know what you're going into it's a whole different thing. Needless to say that a well equiped aircraft with autopilot and a decent gps helps a lot.
And with regard to position reports, if you ever happen to fly to north africa you'll know why something like a garmin430 with your route programmed in is a very nice thing to have...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Whirly, I'm not sure where you get the idea that you do 5 hours during the PPL. I think 1 hour of instrument awareness is more like it.
HH
I had to do four hours. Depends when you did your training, no doubt.

[bookworm]

Two misconceptions on this thread about the JFK Junior accident (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1).
His spiral dive began at 5500 ft, not low altitude. And the conditions were almost certainly technically VMC, with no cloud around and visibilities between 3 and 5 miles.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

I think the Kennedy thing was flight into IMC, which just happened to take place at night so he could not see the stuff coming.
The plaster cast on his leg didn't help either of course :(

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

But I've always vowed to turn back at the slightest hint of disorientationwhat if turning increased your disorientation? :8

[RatherBeFlying]

Aircraft Performance Study

An aircraft performance study was performed by a Safety Board specialist using the Board's computer simulation program. According to the specialist's report, airplane performance data for the final portion of the flight were calculated using radar, aircraft, and weather data. Performance parameters were then computed for the final 7 minutes of the flight.

The calculated parameters showed the airplane initially descending from 5,500 feet at descent rates varying between 400 and 800 fpm, at 2133:40. At 2137:20, the airplane attained a steady descent rate of close to 600 fpm as the airplane passed through 3,000 feet. During the entire descent from 5,500 feet, the calculated airspeed remained near 160 KIAS, and the flightpath angle remained close to -2 degrees. About 2138, the airplane started to bank in a right-wing-down (RWD) direction toward a southerly direction. Calculated parameters indicated an almost constant roll angle of 13 degrees RWD and a vertical acceleration of 1.09 Gs while executing the turn. About 30 seconds after the turn was initiated, at an altitude of 2,200 feet, the airplane stopped descending. The airplane then climbed for the next 30 seconds, attaining a maximum climb rate of 600 fpm. During the ascent, the airplane finished the turn to a southeasterly direction, reduced speed slightly to 153 KIAS, and returned to a wings-level attitude by 2138:50. By 2139, the airplane leveled at 2,500 feet and then flew in a southeasterly direction with wings level while increasing airspeed back to 160 KIAS.

At 2139:50, the airplane entered a left turn, while slightly increasing altitude to 2,600 feet. The airplane reached a maximum bank angle of 28 degrees left-wing-down (LWD) and a maximum vertical acceleration of 1.2 Gs in this turn. When the maximum LWD bank angle was obtained, the altitude started to decrease at a descent rate close to 900 fpm. The LWD attitude was maintained for approximately 15 seconds until the airplane was heading towards the east. At 2140:07, the airplane bank angle returned to wings level. At 2140:15, with the airplane continuing towards the east, it reestablished a descent close to 900 fpm and then started to increase its bank angle in a RWD direction at nearly a constant rate. As the airplane bank angle increased, the rate of descent increased, and the airspeed started to increase. By 2140:25, the bank angle exceeded 45 degrees, the vertical acceleration was 1.2 Gs, the airspeed increased through 180 knots, and the flightpath angle was close to 5 degrees airplane nose down. After 2140:25, the airplane's airspeed, vertical acceleration, bank, and dive angle continued to increase, and the right turn tightened until water impact, about 2141.
The first bank excursion seems to have been handled correctly as he kept wings level for about a minute after recovery. The final excursion shows the symptoms of disorientation. There seems to be the classic reaction to the initial bank with an overcorrection. The report shows that the AH and T&B were operational, but were sadly not used:(

[IO540]

Thank you for the URL, Bookworm.

However, there probably isn't any difference between say 4nm vis at night, and IMC. At 5500ft and 4nm vis, there is no horizon, over the sea at night there won't be any surface to see, and unless one has other visual cues which are not themselves misleading one needs instrument flight capability for this.

[bookworm]

However, there probably isn't any difference between say 4nm vis at night, and IMC.

Well that's the whole point, isn't it? It's not that he ignored forecasts of cloud, blundered into it at night because he couldn't see it, and then lost control. Rather, he lost control in what was probably perfectly legal VMC at night.

[QDMQDMQDM]

OK, so we have:

-- the Kennedy accident, which was night VMC that frankly only a nutcase would consider as anything but IMC from the outset.
-- the Scillies helicopter, which -- and I may be wrong here -- I believe was not disorientation but lapse of concentration and they literally ploughed straight into the sea.
-- a tale of an ME108 on a sightseeing trip offshore hitting the ocean. (What was he doing, was he doing steep turns?)

Back, then, to my original question, you see, because if flying into the sea as a result of spatial disorientation in haze in stable cruising flight is a significant danger (like CFIT, carb icing, fuel exhaustion, loss of control in cloud) then we would read about it on a regular basis in the rags. We don't, so what conclusion do we draw? Is it that vfr pilots are very prudent and avoid flying in very low vis offshore? Possible as a part explanation, but I don't buy the fact that pilots are significantly smarter with this danger than they are with CFIT etc..

Or is that although mostly it is scary, it is very rarely fatal? The lack of accident reports seems to point to the latter.

QDM

[IO540]

which was night VMC that frankly only a nutcase would consider as anything but IMC from the outset

For "nutcase" you could substitute "any graduate of the PPL training system".

In the night rating you are taught that when you have it you can fly at night. They don't qualify it in any way, like min sky brightness, etc etc etc.

Night flight is IMC - unless you are cheating and doing it 5 minutes after official night time like most PPLs renewing their 90 day currency ;)

Same with the basic PPL and being able to fly in 3000m vis. That's practically IMC, too.

Etc
Etc.

I am not suggesting the rules are tightened; they are already ridiculously tight for an activity which has so little potential for 3rd party damage (and the State has exactly zero business dictating what personal risk an individual takes on). But training should be made more honest, rather than just taking £8000 from every punter walking through the door, then giving him a piece of paper, patronisingly telling him "a license is a license to learn, young man" (followed by half a dozen of the other stupid and useless smart-ar*e phrases that litter this activity) and bugge*ing off with the next student...

[ThomasT]

Kennedy was an assasination. According to the FAA radar operater, he went down once, climbed up again and the second time whopped the water. He had enough experience to fly straight and level in haze. Cross him off your list, UNLESS you also believe that a skinny arab who couldnt solo a cessna 172, with 600 hours in his logbook, who was not on the passenger list, who would overcome two US pilots with boxcutters, who knew he would NOT BE intercepted, who knew the US/Canadian corridor where FAA and Norad radar has no cover, who could find the penta, who could do a 270 degree diving turn at 500mph, who could skim a few feet above the penta lawn, who had selected just the correct part of the penta where it was weakest, who carried a 500 kilo explosive in his weather radar, who could vapourise every part number of the boeing, leave only a few scraps of metal outside the 10 foot hole, leave no marks from engines etc on the rest of the building, hit at an angle, yet penetrate many layers of 3 foot reinforced comcrete, vapourise most the aircraft, still leave 100 DNA samples for testing etc etc ad nauseum.

[Parkbremse]

I am not suggesting the rules are tightened; they are already ridiculously tight for an activity which has so little potential for 3rd party damage (and the State has exactly zero business dictating what personal risk an individual takes on). But training should be made more honest, rather than just taking £8000 from every punter walking through the door, then giving him a piece of paper, patronisingly telling him "a license is a license to learn, young man" (followed by half a dozen of the other stupid and useless smart-ar*e phrases that litter this activity) and bugge*ing off with the next student...
very true. I was very lucky to have a fine simulator instructor who used the 5 hours imc training in the ppl syllabus to teach me a "mini ifr", which included everything from general aircraft handling, ndb and vor tracking to a basic ils appraoch, all in full imc. And another instructor took me twice in minimum vrf conditions (1.5km vis in airspace G with barely earth sight), demonstrating what i'm actually allowed to fly in once i have my license. That certainly helped me alot when i got trapped above an overcast cloud layer (due to unforcasted weather and a bit of poor planning...) and had to descent through 6000ft of solid clouds circumnavigating embedded cb cells with a stormscope... all in "vrf" with about 30h experience after i got my license. Not a nice experience and i never want be in that situation again, i think however that the proper training i recieved during the ppl helped a alot to save my day.