Flying into the sea
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I agree.
The best way to do position reports is a GPS with the route programmed in it
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 Best way is to just read it off the GPS.
The best way to do position reports is a GPS with the route programmed in it
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 Best way is to just read it off the GPS.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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...
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...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Hampshire Hog
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
HH
Two misconceptions on this thread about the JFK Junior accident.
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.
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.
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I've always vowed to turn back at the slightest hint of disorientation
Excerpt from Kennedy Accident Report
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
However, there probably isn't any difference between say 4nm vis at night, and IMC.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
-- 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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna
Age: 85
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by ThomasT; 28th May 2006 at 08:50.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
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...
