Unusual attitudes in real IMC

[Jepp]

This is a question that keeps popping up in my mind every now and then, and it started about four years ago when I was doing an IMC renewal flight test.

I had a flight test booked the day before I was due to go on holiday, and my usual routine was to have one or two hours dual refresher training a few days before the test.

On the day of the actual flight test the cloudbase was 1000ft ish, great I thought, wont need the screens up today, so off we went on the renewal.

After doing all the usual stuff my examiner said " ok lets go see if we can find a gap in the clouds to do some unusual panel recoveries, we climbed through 6, 7, 8 thousand and still no blue appeared, so he said "right,well do them here" I said" I thought it was illegal to do practice ones in real IMC " he replied "well you want to do the test dont you? " So he pulled out some sticky pads and placed them over the AI and put the aircraft in some REALLY bad attitudes to which I successfully recovered !

I know that if I was uncomfortable with anything that I should of said NO, but in the situation that I was, I went along with it, wrongly in hindsight, but there you go.

Was the examiner breaking the rules by doing this part of the test in IMC, or is legal ?

:confused:

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

In the examiners opion he had weather conditions that gave VMC flight conditions.

Therefore he would not have infringed any rules.

WWW

[LowNSlow]

I thought there were limits that describe VMC which include something like "clear of cloud".......

That's not subjective and open to opinion it's a requirement.

Not a problem really, there was still 1,000' between the cloud base and terra firma to recover from an inadvertant spin.....:eek:

[BEagle]

Although the IMC Rating mandatory UPs are very gentle compared to the sort of thing we used to have to recover from during a Bulldog military IR, I would always conduct such UPs only in an area which met HASELL check requirements.

Mark you, one cheating little $od kept peeking out during basic IFin the 'dog, so he did indeed spend the next 40 minutes doing real IF in actual IMC. Fortunately the injector carburettor in the 'dog didn't suffer from induction icing to anything like the extent that the simple thing in the PA28 does! But even then I drew the line at UPs - however, his limited panel work improved somewhat!

[englishal]

So the examiner expected you do do unusual attitudes in IMC? Sounds a bloody cowboy to me...I'd have refused. He obviously over-rated his flying skill, and its people like this who will get themselves and others killed !

Although its perfectly possible to do UA in IMC and survive, is it really worth the risk when you don't have to?

EA

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

The crux is wether or not you were in IMC or VMC " on top" that marvelous condition that does not really exist.. Sometimes it is perfectly safe to be above and clear of cloud and have sufficient visual references to perform some placid UA PP recoveries.

I doubt your examiner was a 'cowboy' and people jumping to such conclusions on scanty evidence should consider winding their neck in.

WWW

[Jepp]

WWW

I can confirm that we were in solid IMC conditions.

Jepp

[LowNSlow]

www, jepp said that they climbed from a 1,000' cloudbase to 8,000' without finding any "blue". From that I think it's reasonable to assume the partial panel exercise was carried out under IMC as they couldn't break out on top. The tone which jepp uses implies uncertainty at carrying out the partial panel exercise out of sight of the ground.

It sounds to me like they were doing partial panel in IMC conditions.

If this is indeed the case then there is no need for anybody to wind their necks in. An instructor doing partial panel in IMC conditions is breaking the rules and basically being a tw@t.

[englishal]

WWW,

So would you do UA PP in solid IMC deliberately? If you would then you obviously think you're a better pilot than you probably are and you're liable to be a danger to other people (I think Freud had a theory on personnalities like this). If you get into difficulty, say a spin, be it a 'student' mistake, an aircraft problem etc, then I'd say your chances of survival are much better if you can identify the problem by use of a visual reference and correct it straight away, rather then either relying on the turn coordinator / ASI or waiting till you pop out the bottom 1000' above the ground to sort it out.

In the 'old' days before gyroscopic instruments they used to do IMC let downs by placing the A/C into a spin above the cloud layer, spin through and recover once through. This is all very well assuming two things....1) you know which way you're spinning....and 2) you have enough altitude below the cloud to recover....neither were present in this case.

Rgds
EA

[Polar_stereographic]

Correct me if I'm wrong,

but when I did an FI rating, I had the IMC added on account that I had an IR. In those days, there was no UA in the IR.

So, I was not trained to recover from spins/UA under the hood, particularily when you consider it'll almost certainly be partial pannel.

Unless things havce changed, I'd suggest VMC. Infact, when I redid my IR last Jan, we always did it VMC. No exceptions.

PS

[englishal]

I was taught PP stalls and (very) unusual attitudes under the hood for my IR, which is ok in VMC, (even on top) with an instructor beside you. However in IMC, even an instructor / examiner, no matter how good they are (or think they are) can get themselvies right in the sh*t if they are not careful !

cheers
EA

[Polar_stereographic]

That was my point also.

[QNH 1013]

WWW
Why do you think that VMC does not exist above cloud? Are you confusing the exemption which allows a/c at less than 3000 feet and less than 140 knots to be considered to be in VMC even if the (normally) required spacing from cloud cannot be maintained providing they are CLEAR of cloud AND in sight of the surface.
Once you are above 3000 feet, being in sight of the surface is not a requirement for VMC. The required spacing from cloud and in-flight visibility however are requirements for VFR flight above 3000ft.
I believe it is a licence requirement for basic PPL holders that they remain in sight of the surface at all times. However, this is a licence rule not a meteorological specification.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

QNH - you are of course correct. I know the rules as well as the next barrack room lawyer. I was having a dig at the number of people who claim "VMC on top" when in fact those tops are 20ft below them or they are in a hole about 2 miles in diameter... I have conducted numerous IF and visual sorties above a cloud layer in perfect training conditions.

ok lets go see if we can find a gap in the clouds to do some unusual panel recoveries, we climbed through 6, 7, 8 thousand and still no blue appeared

Implies to me that a suitable gap was found and that there was an overcast layer well above.

WWW,

So would you do UA PP in solid IMC deliberately?

Not what I said or implied. Stop trying to be dramatic.

If you would then you obviously think you're a better pilot than you probably are and you're liable to be a danger to other people (I think Freud had a theory on personnalities like this).

I think and know that I am an average pilot. Always have been and always will be. If you want to get into Freudian theory with a Psychology BA then please go ahead - but its not appropraite for this forum.

If you get into difficulty, say a spin, be it a 'student' mistake, an aircraft problem etc, then I'd say your chances of survival are much better if you can identify the problem by use of a visual reference and correct it straight away, rather then either relying on the turn coordinator / ASI or waiting till you pop out the bottom 1000' above the ground to sort it out.

I was always trained by the RAF not to use a visual reference for spin recovery but to rigidly rely on your turn and slip. Visual reference can easily be misconstrued and in an inverted spin you won't have any. A turn coordinator is lethal in these situations as is the ASI. Which if you had ever taught spinning exercises you would know. Recovery from 1000ft AGL is merely a deathwish, my limit is 5000ft then its parachute time.

In the 'old' days before gyroscopic instruments they used to do IMC let downs by placing the A/C into a spin above the cloud layer, spin through and recover once through. This is all very well assuming two things....1) you know which way you're spinning....and 2) you have enough altitude below the cloud to recover....neither were present in this case.

What? In your opinion based on a posting from someone under test with hoods/foggles on? Just what would be the motivation I ask you for an examiner to push himself into a dangerous spin recovery with someone with whom he had not flown before? Why would he wish to put himself in an aircraft flown by some numpty in a spin in IMC down to a low height? NONE. So it didn't happen.

EA may be concerned. But that is not enough to start making sweeping statements about a professional pilots judgement. Particularly not from you enhlishal.

Rgds
EA


WWW

[FlyingForFun]

WWW/EnglishAl - sounds to me like the two of you agree on this, and that the only confusion was that WWW mis-interpreted the original post by Jepp.

WWW - was wondering if you could clarify a point from your last post. You said "A turn coordinator is lethal in these situations as is the ASI." I'm sure I remember being taught to use the ASI to distinguish between a spin (airspeed very low, around about stall speed) and a spiral dive (airspeed very high and increasing) - am I wrong?

Thanks,

FFF
------------

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

For spin vs spiral dive then the ASI is a valid instrument. For spin recognition it is not.

We were discussing spin recovery only.

WWW

[englishal]

Not what I said or implied. Stop trying to be dramatic

Well you did tell me to wind my neck in even though Jepp had pointed out that it WAS IN SOLID IMC......Defending an examiner in this situation just makes you look stupid.

I was always trained by the RAF not to use a visual reference for spin recovery but to rigidly rely on your turn and slip. Visual reference can easily be misconstrued and in an inverted spin you won't have any. A turn coordinator is lethal in these situations as is the ASI. Which if you had ever taught spinning exercises you would know. Recovery from 1000ft AGL is merely a deathwish, my limit is 5000ft then its parachute time.

Thanks, I know. Next time I'll bring a Turn and Slip indicator just in case I get caught out, then I can quickly wire it in place of the turn coordinator, seeing as they're not very common in modern aircraft, and then I can recover....Anyway, in the adsence of a TaSI I was taught that the turn coordinator is most reliable instrument, so please explain why it is "Lethal in these situations" as I'm most interested. Also in IMC, with no TaSI, a 'Lethal' TC and ASI, what will I use to recover? Just blindly stand on one of the pedals, hoping that th 50/50 chance of getting the correct one pays off?


What? In your opinion based on a posting from someone under test with hoods/foggles on? Just what would be the motivation I ask you for an examiner to push himself into a dangerous spin recovery with someone with whom he had not flown before? Why would he wish to put himself in an aircraft flown by some numpty in a spin in IMC down to a low height? NONE. So it didn't happen.

What are you talking about WWW? You seem to have lost the plot. This was an illustration of the fact that it IS safe to come through clouds with no gyroscopic instruments, as they used to do it in the old days (30's and before), but you need to get yourself set up first.


EA may be concerned. But that is not enough to start making sweeping statements about a professional pilots judgement. Particularly not from you enhlishal

Jesus, you really have lost it. Do you not have any concern at all that an examiner would attempt this in IMC? I hope you'd have the bottle to question the Captain you are flying with if you were ever the least concerned with what he/she was doing? Or becasue he/she is a 'more senior Proffessional pilot' would you TOTALLY trust his judgement?

WWW, next time, before you start ranting and raving, please read and try to understand ALL of the posts. You start sprouting so much ****, it makes you look a fool.

EA

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

englishal - in this case the student thinks the examiner may have been in IMC conditions. This does not mean that they were. As long as the examiner judged VFR conditions applied then all is well.

Which is probably what occurred.

Cheers,

WWW

[BEagle]

Nope - it is quite evident that the UA recoveries were carried out in solid IMC. That is an exceptionally stupid and dangerous thing to do and the examiner should be asked to discuss the matter with the CFE.

There is nothing wrong with flying on limited panel in IMC so long as you are practised in the skill. Some of my rather wetter colleagues at the UAS wouldn't tail-chase, spin or aerobat above 8/8 in case the AH failed to re-erect afterwards. Bunch of pansies!