Bad flying? Stupid? or bad luck?

[VH-XXX]

Based on this, should IR's be mandatory for Commercial Pilots?
Two pilots for VFR?

We're talking simple VFR with 10 pax in an amphibious aircraft and loss of visual horizon causing the pilot to become disoriented.

Sounds like it could have been a close call and lucky that someone was there to help out!

Is this what happens in a pilot shortage and how many people flying these kinds of *complex* machines would have a CIR?

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/AAIR/aair200703905.aspx

[Awnick]

Maybe there should be more IF during PPL training. You are only required to have 2 hours IF time to sit your PPL exam. Which is clearly not enough experience in IMC conditions.

Doing the IR for the commercial is a good idea, but some people may not be able to afford the extra money to pay for it. A smaller course which gives you the basics , and a few more than 2 hours IF could be introduced?

A good topic, looking forward to everyone elses responses :ok:

[WannaBeBiggles]

There is already 10 hour IF requirement for CPL, but I do agree it would be useful, maybe just some IF unusual attitude recovery would be of great value, without going the whole nine (expensive) yards.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

You are only required to have 2 hours IF time to sit your PPL exam.

My recollection is that the requirement for an Unrestricted PPL used to be 5 hours.

What bright spark decided it would be a good idea to reduce this?

While I am a little reluctant to "point the bone" at this pilot for getting himself in this predicament, I would have thought that anyone with training to commercial standard would be able to maintain straight and level on instruments.

Getting himself into this situation shows seriously flawed decision making - getting himself out of it again shows equally flawed decision making.

I wonder if the pax realised how close they came to dying?

Dr :8

[Brian Abraham]

Doc, Don't necessarily agree with your flawed decision making remark in its totallity. Consider he had another aircraft ahead going to the same destination (pressure - he's doing the job, so can I - macho element?), the guy only got paid for the hours he flew (pressure - money in the bank to pay the bills), weather forecast (while it turned out to be on the money, how often do we fly when the horoscope with numbers predicts less than desired). If all aviators are honest with themselves they will all have their own weather related story to tell, we learn from the mistakes we make, some survive some don't. The chap has to be commended for getting on the blower as soon as he realised he was in over his head, all too often the macho within us prevents admitting to errors and the head line to this thread shows why. Bad flying? Stupid? or bad luck? Who wants to carry the reputation or tag of being stupid, or be accused of bad flying. The guy has had a bad experience from which he will have learnt and be a far better pilot for it all. It would be nice in a perfect world to make a command rating part of the CPL, at least for these sort of charter operations.

[Capt Wally]

I don't believe that it's the amount of IF pilots have during the course of their training pvt or otherwise it's more the recurrent check & training of those IF skills that's rarely continued. Just about anyone at any license level can maintain S&L for a little while whilst under instruction but when let loose for a number of years & plenty of VRF hrs when encountering non VMC then their simply too rusty to be safe. Maybe BFR's (I guess it's still done that way) should also include some Lim panel during the test(It may do anyway).
I know even after a few weeks of holidays when confronted with genuine IMC it's not quite as reactional as it is doing it on a reg basis.
It all boils down to making decisions, EARLY!

Good result for this guy at least he asked for help, this time!

CW

[Jabawocky]

Wally

You took the words out of my mouth so to speak. Its about recurrent training aand checking. Even for a MECIR holder! Sure an Airline pilot with 20,000 + hours is not likely to come unstuck even after a few years of retirement, however a young CPL with no IR is going to be in a far less experienced position unless he gets checked at review time.

I do think 10-15 min of every review for PPL and CPL VFR should be set aside for some instrument time and more training if need be. I do, just for the challenge of it.

Also agree with FTDK on what excuse for taking paying pax into that?:ugh:

PPL these days is 2 hours only. Was the most fun of my whole training:)

J:ok:

[maui]

Broome. Floatplane.

Perchance did this guy work for a "colourful aviation identity" who has recently returned from a starring role in SIN.

M

[Flying Binghi]

Unless a low timer stays current on the dails, probably a waste of time learning any IF in the first place.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Unless a low timer stays current on the dails, probably a waste of time learning any IF in the first place.


Binghi, based on a personal experience I gotta disagree with you!

Dr :8

PS: I was solo on a private flight - not commercial with 10 punters!

[pithblot]

Current hands-on instrument flying is the solution to the problem. And it is a whole lot easier to get this today in the computer age....FlightSim04. ...$70... put it on your lap-top and practice limited panel in a 172 til your heart's content. Fly a glass PC12 if you like or a B200. You can add some wind, some turbulence, a few failures - it's very good, very realistic and will improve your instrument flying skills.

With FS04 available there is no excuse for any pilot carrying passengers not to have reasonable instrument flying skills, including limited panel. Every operator (including VFR only) ought to provide this facility and encourage their crew to stay in I/F practice, even if it can't be logged. They don't even need a huge C&T department - just ask any 10 year old how to get started.

If you have made the trip up north and have done the hard yards you may well have a log book full of hours in some nice aeroplanes...be careful....if your only I/F is to sneak through IRT, Base and Route Checks every year it's likely your I/F skills are more rusty than you would like. There is almost no I/F to be had in the Dry season (and it's not made up for by flying in the Wet) so I/F skills suffer. Lots of experienced pilots fall into this trap and "most of us are like the rest of us".

The skill deficit becomes evident under pressure - for example in Sim sessions and endorsement training. When you want to be learning something new (or deal with an emergency) your head space is taken up just trying to do the basics (fly I/F)....something has to give.... unless you have found a way to maintain current hands-on instrument flying practice, which you can do with 70 bucks and a lap top :ok:

Cheers,

PITHBLOT

[VH-XXX]

As much as what you are saying sounds good, flying on a computer doesn't give the sensation that you get when flying a "real" plane. Vertigo, disorientation and stress usually only happen in a real flying environment.

If he was low on fuel or something was wrong with the aircraft, perhaps like a warning light, thing must have been very different given the stress levels that would have been present.

If I was one of the 10 passengers on-board I would be VERY upset! Last thing you want is to pay several hundred dollars for a pleasant day trip to end up dead or maimed because the pimple faced 19 year old pilot wasn't very good on instruments because his employer might have been paying him peanuts! (age made up)

[Centaurus]

The current method of unusual attitude "training" at the PPL and CPL phase is a couple of steepish turns and slightly nose high/low pitch angles meanwhile the student is supposed to close his eyes so he cannot see what the instructor is doing. Then the student is permitted to open his eyes and look at the instruments (usually after a quick peek outside from under the hood) and recover to level flight.

There is already 10 hour IF requirement for CPL, but I do agree it would be useful, maybe just some IF unusual attitude recovery would be of great value, without going the whole nine (expensive) yards

What a waste of time and money. First of all, if a non-instrument rated pilot encounters IMC or at night gets into a UA inadvertently, he certainly won't have his eyes closed looking down at his knees. He will see what is going on and unless he has been properly trained in UA interpretation and recovery on the clocks he could be in strife. A half hearted UA manoeuvre in a C150 taught by a grade 3 instructor in CAVOK is a total waste of time if only for the limitations imposed by a non-aerobatic aircraft.

Obviously there are limits to throwing around a light twin during instrument flying training in the real thing. Hoods or foggles or screens have their limitations and most of the time are not true IMC simulation because you can always see the sky at some point. The answer is to use a synthetic trainer where instrument indications of an unusual attitude can be studied at leisure and appropriate recovery action demonstrated. Of course control forces are not replicated but the main thing is instant recognition of the position the aircraft is in and the best recovery action. Think inverted in a flash behind an A380...

[Led Zep]

I firmly believe more exposure to marginal weather conditions during training would be beneficial. I have a flight that was 0.6 during my commercial training where my instructor and I blasted off into crap weather. It was something completely new for me and something I didn't experience again until I had a load of punters down the back...I did it through ignorance rather than anything else, simply because I didn't know what was in store for me. To read a TAF is one thing. To see what that actually means is something completely different. Happily my passengers seemed none the wiser when their very pale pilot opened the door for them at their destination. :ugh:

If my instructor had scared the **** out of me during TRAINING by flying in crap conditions I very much doubt I would have done something that stupid on a charter but we'll never know for sure. Certainly couldn't have hurt.

[Capt Wally]

sorry 'jaba' open wide & i'll put those words right back in yr mouth!:E

As a lot have posted here saying much the same thing, we almost all believe it's about being current on the dials. I feel that you can never get enough IF practice, heavens knows when the wx is fowl & it's night, the A/P thru in the towel due nasty turb & one has to hand fly an NDB with winds coming from all points of the compass(feels like it) all the skills in the world won't make it perfect.
Maybe mandatory IF skills (other than a few steep turns in the sunshine) whilst obtaining any license & on going checking to even some basic level has to be the way to go in the future. We've all read some interesting articles in the old 'crash comics' from years gone by, how many seconds was it that took a non inst rated pilot to end up in a graveyard spiral? can't remember exactly but somewhere less than a minute, that was scarey to read way back then as it would be now!



CW

[the wizard of auz]

I believe 78 seconds was the standard time to depart from controlled flight.
(and thats MORE than a minute :E )

[Capt Wally]

hey 'wiz' I'd prefer my guesstimate, less than a minute, that way it's over quicker!:bored:


CW:)

[Brian Abraham]

I think Led Zep has the take on the problem. Realistic training and exposure to the real world. It's interesting that there is report directly below the one under discussion on the ATSB site which is germain to what is being said here.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/AAIR/aair200704080.aspx

[Miraz]

I'm with Led Zep on this - there is precious little in the VFR syllabus that reinforces the decisions that need to be made to stay out of IMC.

It seems to be one of those things that you are expected to learn through personal experience along the way....for many it seems that their first practical experience of flying in sub-optimal VFR conditions will be under their own command.

[maralinga]

Unfortunately, these sorts of occurrences highlight systemic problems within the industry. And I am, of course, speaking in general terms.

The regulator sets the minimum requirement. It is then up to the operator to set the standard, above and beyond this level, which is relevant to their respective operation.

Compliance with the regulations is only the starting point to a safe operation.

It is seems far easier to focus on the pilot these days rather than the architecture that they have to work within. Why should a pilot have to train at home on flight sim when a second/supervisory pilot can be introduced on a dead sector to allow time under the hood? It doesnt even cost any more money! If we want to be serious about having a first rate industry then we need to be proactive about moving away from the lowest common denominator.

[QF2]

A couple of figures floating around here for how long a VFR pilot will last in IMC. Remember the CASA DVD "178 Seconds to Live"? Looks like you get nearly a whole three minutes of IMC aerobatics before you become a stat.

Back to the topic, obviously not the best decision making somewhere or another to end up in IMC, but good on the pilot for making the decision to get assistance when he did rather than to try and fix up the situation himself, therefore reducing the risk he had put himself and the 10 pax in. Although it sounds like the obvious things to do, I know some people would try to fix up the situation themselves to avoid getting attention from CASA or an ATSB investigation. I know that there is no excuse for getting into IMC, especially with passengers, but all the same he will be a better and safer pilot now in the future.