Flying Blind

[NigelS]

I am having flying lessons at Redhill and hope to go solo real soon. Recently my instructor and I went to an airfield other than Redhill to do our circuits and this introduced elements of navigation at the same time. However, there was a particular element that scared the life out of me. We departed Redhill and rapidly ascended to 2500' to intercept an Ockham radial. Before we contacted Farnborough for radar (and switched the transponder to whatever they wanted), I flew into cloud. What scared me was that without radar advice or being identified on a controllers screen, I was flying through cloud and a mid-air could have resulted. I didn't get a chance to discuss it with my instructor afterwards as he needed to rush off to do another lesson. It was, in truth, a brief period in the unknown and I'm probably over reacting. My instructor didn't seem bothered in the slightest. But then he's just got his IR...

Does this sound odd or just normal procedure??

Thanks in advance

Nigel

[pondlife]

Tricky one this.

Some people well tell you that it is an extremely stupid thing to do and that you absolutely mustn't fly blind in cloud. Others will tell you that the sky is big and that the risk of a collision is very small. It's really up to you to determine if you think it's an acceptable risk. Your instructor should respect what you decide - if he doesn't then change instructor.

Here's my thoughts :-

1. Yup, feels wrong to fly blind, but it also feels wrong to fly in good VMC and realise that an aeroplane has got uncomfortably close to you before you've seen it. I and many others don't believe that you will see all traffic visually - due to its constant position in your view, you are least likely to see the traffic which is most likely to conflict with you. You can reduce the risk of collision in VMC by using a disciplined scan but I don't believe anyone who says that they can spot all traffic.
2. In IMC in uncontrolled airspace there is usually less traffic than in good VMC.
3. There have been several mid-air collisions in this country in VMC. I don't believe that there have been any in IMC - if anyone knows different please correct me.
4. You can significantly reduce the risk of flying blind in IMC by not flying directly overhead navigation aids.
5. You can significantly reduce the risk in both IMC and VMC by getting a radar service - sounds like your instructor did this and so minimised the time that your were "blind" for.
6. Some commercial flights operate in uncontrolled airspace. They will get a radar service if possible, but when it's not available they may end up flying blind - bet you and the commercial passengers didn't know that.

Personally, I will fly blind for brief periods so long as my students are OK with it - but I try to minimise the time that I am blind for.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I didn't get a chance to discuss it with my instructor afterwards as he needed to rush off to do another lesson.

If he didn't give you a debrief then he didn't finish your lesson.

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Wile E. Coyote ]

[Chilli Monster]

Nigel

There is often a transition between going IMC and getting a radar service. In some parts of the country you won't get a radar service in IMC at weekends. Don't sweat it. Providing the handling pilot is qualified then the risk is reduced. Providing he flies according to certain rules the risk is reduced further. Sometimes getting a radar service is just the iciing on the cake.

As has been pointed out - less people fly IMC than VMC, so less chance of a collision, especially if you follow the rules.

CM

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

I agree 100% with W.e.C. At such an early stage of your flying career your instructor needs to explain exactly what's going on. Not least that, under the terms of your impending PPL, you will break the law if you intentionally put yourself in a similar situation.

[NigelS]

Thanks to all of you for excellent responses. I feel a lot happier now and looking forward to getting stuck in.

Cheers

Nigel

[paulo]

Very interesting - I always wondered about the time my instructor did this. No radar, just pootling along at about 3500 from Shoreham to Lydd, with the odd hole to peer through to check our nav. Probably did about 15 minutes blind.

It certainly felt very weird.

[NigelS]

There was another time when I did this. I started training at Shoreham and had a very experienced instructor who was very reassuring. Weather had set in while we were out and to get back he took the 180 radial to Seaford. Went outbound FROM for a few minutes then did a turn to west. We descended through thick cloud for what seemed like ages. He reassured me that we would only go to 300 feet and that the tallest thing we could hit would be a ships mast. We made a final turn to line up with 03 and popped out of the cloud at about 250. I remember being sooo impressed that the runway was just ahead of us and we were tracking the centreline.

Sorry, this is probably all just normal routing for most of you guys but I was very impressed by it. Strangely though it was not as scary as the episode I mentioned above. Probably because Shoreham control had given us info about who else was in the area, and were expecting us...

Nige

[Code Blue]

I have followed this thread with interest and have some questions in general, probably due to the fact I have little or no knowledge of UK Air Law.

If flying under VFR in the UK, are you required to remain clear of cloud?

From a statistical point of view, in North America the most likely outcome of venturing into cloud when not flying IFR is a smoking hole in the ground rather than a mid air. How different are the figures in the UK?

If flying practice instrument approaches or let downs, do you have to file IFR or can you do so if you maintain VFR with a safety pilot?

Rgds
CB

[Chilli Monster]

Code Blue

Yes - VFR in the United Kingdom does require you to remain clear of cloud. However, there is no problem with switching between VFR and IFR outside of controlled airspace without filing a flight plan (indeed, you don't even have to be talking to an ATC unit) providing you comply with the Instrument Flight Rules and, if the flight involves flight in IMC, you are qualified to do so.

Practice instrument approaches in the UK do not require the flight to be conducted IFR, and so no flight plan needs to be filed. However, if the student pilot is flying under the hood then the instructor or safety pilot must have unrestricted views outside as well as full access to the aircraft controls. If he does not have full vision (possibly due to blind spots) then another observer must be carried to cover any blind spots.

As for the accident statistics. Yes, inadvertant flight in IMC (and I think it's important to differentiate between IMC and IFR here) does tend to result in a 'smoking hole'. Anyone unqualified who does it is asking for an accident.

CM

[ 23 November 2001: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]

[eyeinthesky]

Nigel S:

The incident you refer to at Shoreham worries me for several reasons:

1) If he was not following a published instrument approach he must not go below Minimum Safe Altitude (1000 ft above the highest fixed object within 5nm of the aircraft) unless he has visual contact with the ground. (This in the ANO)

2) If he was following an instrument procedure then he must not descend below 1000ft above the ground unless he can expect the required minima in terms of visibility and/or cloudbase for the procedure. These minima are specified for each aerodrome with an instrument approach procedure. The NDB/DME procedure for 03 at Shoreham gives a Minimum Descent Altitude of 460 ft QNH / 450 ft QFE, with a minimum visibility of 1500m. Your report of breaking out at 250 ft seems therefore to be well below that. In fact it is a usual minimum for an ILS, and is well below the level of the high ground just off the upwind end of 03.

3) Unless the instructor had had the restriction lifted, he is not allowed to do 'Applied instrument instruction' which an approach with him as P1 and you as Pu/t would be. He is only allowed to teach the basic instrument flying as covered in the PPL syllabus. If he flew the approach and you logged all the time as Pu/t then I think it was illegal as he was not qualified to do that.

So in short I would be far more alarmed about this story than a quick punch into cloud around OCK. It seems that on at least two criteria you instructor was at best breaking the law and at worst risking your and his life.

Beyond that, flight in cloud is nothing to fear, but it is a good idea to have a radar service if you can.

[Code Blue]

CM:

The UK regs sound similar to here (Canada).

As for the accident statistics. Yes, inadvertant flight in IMC (and I think it's important to differentiate between IMC and IFR here) does tend to result in a 'smoking hole'
You're right about that: the data here suggest that it is just as lethal for an instrument rated pilot to end up inadvertent IMC as a non instrument rated one.

Interestingly just as many IR pilots seem to stuff up as non-IR when in unplanned IMC. It would be useful to know the total #'s of IR & non IR pilots in N American GA, because on first glance, it could suggest that, if IR pilots are a numerically smaller group than non-IR, then the proportion of IR pilots who fool up may actually be greater than the non-IR!! :eek:

Rgds
CB
edited for splling & tipng :D

[ 23 November 2001: Message edited by: Code Blue ]

[eyeinthesky]

Strange that this thread should suddenly die after a promising start. Has nobody else got anything to add on this sometimes confusing issue?

[CaptAirProx]

eyeinthesky - Not much else to add except that the note about descending into Shoreham 250'agl has a certain tinge of "Cowboy" in it? That instructor would have been nailed to the wall if he had done that at my club. I got a rollocing for coming back from a lesson and legally breaking cloud from a PAR after an IMC lesson 50' above minima. The point was that I shouldn't have allowed the flight to have got that close. Why had I not landed earlier when the base was dropping. Poor airmanship, and lesson planning was my offending items at that coffee and biscuits meeting with the boss. Can't imagine what the instructor on this flight was trying to prove to his student, except how to kill themselves.

[Kirstey]

We all exaggerate in aviation!! Perhaps that 250ft was really 1250ft etc etc. The fact always slowly go in favour the more dramatic exageration - maybe we should discuss the interesting topic rather than pat ourselfs on the back for being keyboard warriors!

The only time I have been in thick cloud was to get "on top" once - my instructor switched us temporatily to IFR and when we broke out we were still in the ATZ at Shoreham I would guess. Not sure how I'd feel relying on London Info to get me through though.

[Kermit 180]

We all exagerate? Wow, strong statement :eek:
No denying whats on the clock though!

[Not_Another_Pot]

Over here in Aus, you can chop and change from VFR to IFR at any time but you must go under full reporting to Centre when under the IFR.

A flight plan is not required but expect little or no help and looooong delays from centre if you don’t file one!

NAP

[bow5]

I posted this on another thread but I think it's more appropriate here.

Can a basic PPL file an IFR flightplan IF they stay in VFR throughout the flight?

If that is so, then if you were to file an IFR flightplan without a IR or IMC rating and were then vectored into IMC conditions I presume you would downgrade your RAS to a RIS and stay VFR. Would this consequently mean the cancellation of your IFR flightplan completely or could you resume the flightplan once clear of the weather?

I am desparate to learn instrument flying but it's the usual problem, temporary lack of funds! :rolleyes:

[englishal]

I think it may start to p**s ATC off if you keep cancelling your IFR flight plan, and requesting a new one every few minutes just becasue you wanted to remain clear of cloud etc etc. Why not just go out VFR with a safety pilot and practice attitude instrument flying, tracking VOR radials etc etc, and even shoot a few approaches, but all VFR??

See yer

EA

[bow5]

I didn't mean it like that. I was was wondering if a PPL without an IR/IMC can file an IFR flightplan.

[eyeinthesky]

Yes he can, provided he flies in accordance with the VMC minima relevant to the class of airspace. It would be a brave man who would file a flight plan which might restrict him to certain routes or levels and be sure he could remain 1000 ft vertically or 1500m horizontally from cloud and/or clear of cloud in sight of the surface etc for the whole flight. Remember you are also subject to the more stringent minimum height rules under IFR. To my mind, once IFR is cancelled it would be difficult to keep refiling it once you are back on track clear of your particular cloud.

Don't confuse Instrument Flight Rules with Instrument Meterological Conditions, or Visual Flight Rules with Visual Meterological Conditions. On an IFR flight can you can fly a visual (conditions, not rules) approach to an airfield, but you are still subject to the separation and restrictions afforded to an IFR flight. You are in VMC but under IFR (as are most airliners at altitude).

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Just to reinforce a couple of things CM said.

First point: You do not need to file a flight plan to fly IFR, provided that the flight remains outside CAS (ie open FIR).

Second point: You must remember that to 'simulate' IFR, you must have a safety pilot and dual flight controls.

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: Whipping Boy's SATCO ]

[eyeinthesky]

There is a very similar exchange going on on another thread headed "A question I should have asked earlier..." which gives further info.

[FlyingForFun]

eyeinthesky,

Are you sure that you must maintain 1000'/1500m, if you are IFR without an IR/IMC rating?

My understanding was that you must keep to the most stringent of the rules for the airspace you're in under the rules you're following (VFR/IFR), and the restrictions of your license. The 1000'/1500m rule is part of the VFR rules. The restriction of the basic PPL only stipulates clear of cloud and in site of the surface. In fact, I seem to remember a thread a couple of months ago where someone suggested that avoiding the 1000'/1500m rule is about the only practical reason for wanting to fly IFR if you don't have a IR/IMC rating (although even then you could usually keep below 3000', where the rule doesn't apply anyway, unless there's some airspace or something down there that you don't want to bother with).

As for having two threads on the same subject, perhaps one of the thread-starters (NigelS or pil) could close his thread, and we can carry on with just one thread?

FFF
----------

[eyeinthesky]

FFF: I think you may be right. My point was that in order to comply with the restrictions on your basic PPL you might find the requirements of routes or levels on IFR flight make it impossible.

I assume we are talking about flight outside CAS here. If you take the parallel of a PPL with a night rating only (no IMC) then he is flying under IFR but must remain VMC, so it must be possible to fly IFR by day with a basic PPL provided you remain VMC at all times.

[Kirstey]

Kermit 180! we do all exagerate - it's not meant to be a disparaging comment it's human nature - first time I did PFLs I was, "Wow he cut the engine and, I picked a field, shaped up to land in it got to 40ft before we pulled away!" Of course really the engine was merley idled and we got to over 500ft from the field. The exageration much better describes our feelings!