VFR Into IMC Training?
Are you saying Leadie that you HAVEN'T trained your student well and they can't perform a turn-back successfully? Surely they didn't all "crash" out of your hand-over in IMC straight away and in less than a minute??? Are we talking Raa, GFPT or PPL?
I didn't set out to train them to turn back, not required and not possible in the time available --- if you actually understand the problem. I taught them, very thoroughly, to not get into the situation in the first place.
I don't know the numbers, 50-60 maybe, but not one, having done the "under the hood" stuff as required by the syllabus, and standards, (all PPL) not one lasted more than 70sec., mostly around 30-35 sec., in the real world. As a matter of interest, not mentioned in previous post, whether I flew the aircraft into the Cu, and said "handing over", or the candidate flew into the cloud, the time to loss of control was not materially different.
Aircraft involved, mostly PA-28 or C-150/152/172/182.
I too learned to fly in UK, where the weather is often rather inclement, but it is horses for courses, your chances of surviving a VMR into IMC is minimal --- if you are a VFR only pilot in either place.
(although I note it was mentioned above that their crash rate is high)
Meanwhile, CASA have screwed the PIFR, it will probably fade away.
One of the "big things" about proper instrument training is you get to really understand the critical value of recency ---- and stay in severe clear (so to speak) when you know, because of your training, that you are not current.
That is the whole point, training to not get into trouble in the first place, not being competent to extract yourself from trouble, having first demonstrated your incompetence in getting into trouble.
Overall, 15 years ago, the Australian GA accident rate was about double the US, thanks to the redoubled efforts of CASA (remember Einstein's definition of lunacy, continuing to do the same thing, over and over again, and expecting a different outcome) at "safety by enforcement", "Black Letter L-A-W","Capital R regulation, "we are policemen" etc., our accident rate is now around three times the US rate.
Sadly, all entirely predictable, better to educate to not "commit the offense" in the first place.
As to whoever wants to split hairs about "accident" versus "occurrence", aeroplane landed in paddock, precautionary landing, minor aircraft damaged --, bent prop, damaged nose gear, --- I will leave it to you to determine the classification under the relevant Act.
Tootle pip!!
I've enjoyed reading this thread. Everyone with the best intentions and few able to agree on how to improve the situation.
My thoughts: The reason it is hard to agree on a way forward is we are all so different in our experiences and our skills, our decision making processes, our attitudes and our risk tolerance. It would be a bit like getting everyone to agree on the ideal level of social welfare that a country should have, it won't happen because we are all from different backgrounds.
A middle ground is the end result.
Bang for buck has been mentioned about NTS and simulators, maybe that's a good starting point. Giving people a method of assessing risk is a good idea in my mind. It's only recently that Airline pilots have been given formal training in this area and it can be very useful in some circumstances if people embrace the idea ( attitudes again).
Eg, at the planning stage it might look like this ;
Risk= probability x consequence
4. = very low x catastrophic
"Righto, let's stick with the plan to head off for the weekend"
Then airborne with shelving cloud pushing down around 500ftt into heavy rain and rising terrain along the route it might change to
9 = moderate x catastrophic
" Righto that's not acceptable to me, we'll divert to Wollongong call the others from there"
For some people a framework for assessing risk like that will seem cumbersome and won't work for them operationally. For others, it will provide clarity and confidence to their decision making. The thing is, it is cheap to teach and free to implement. Everyone runs their own method anyway but very few can tell you how it works or have any idea if it is in line with what those around them think.
Add to that a frame work for making a decision once the risk has been assessed and we might get somewhere on the NTS side.
A good few PPLs would enjoy applying the method to driving and all sorts of other activities in their daily lives as well until it becomes a natural process that takes but a second.
My thoughts: The reason it is hard to agree on a way forward is we are all so different in our experiences and our skills, our decision making processes, our attitudes and our risk tolerance. It would be a bit like getting everyone to agree on the ideal level of social welfare that a country should have, it won't happen because we are all from different backgrounds.
A middle ground is the end result.
Bang for buck has been mentioned about NTS and simulators, maybe that's a good starting point. Giving people a method of assessing risk is a good idea in my mind. It's only recently that Airline pilots have been given formal training in this area and it can be very useful in some circumstances if people embrace the idea ( attitudes again).
Eg, at the planning stage it might look like this ;
Risk= probability x consequence
4. = very low x catastrophic
"Righto, let's stick with the plan to head off for the weekend"
Then airborne with shelving cloud pushing down around 500ftt into heavy rain and rising terrain along the route it might change to
9 = moderate x catastrophic
" Righto that's not acceptable to me, we'll divert to Wollongong call the others from there"
For some people a framework for assessing risk like that will seem cumbersome and won't work for them operationally. For others, it will provide clarity and confidence to their decision making. The thing is, it is cheap to teach and free to implement. Everyone runs their own method anyway but very few can tell you how it works or have any idea if it is in line with what those around them think.
Add to that a frame work for making a decision once the risk has been assessed and we might get somewhere on the NTS side.
A good few PPLs would enjoy applying the method to driving and all sorts of other activities in their daily lives as well until it becomes a natural process that takes but a second.
I don't know the numbers, 50-60 maybe, but not one, having done the "under the hood" stuff as required by the syllabus, and standards, (all PPL) not one lasted more than 70sec., mostly around 30-35 sec., in the real world. As a matter of interest, not mentioned in previous post, whether I flew the aircraft into the Cu, and said "handing over", or the candidate flew into the cloud, the time to loss of control was not materially different.
Aircraft involved, mostly PA-28 or C-150/152/172/182.
Aircraft involved, mostly PA-28 or C-150/152/172/182.
I knew I was good but I didn't realise what an incredibly talented PPL I was!
You are probably thinking of someone else in terms of IMC in a Jabiru, and yes, I suspect many are, but that would be difficult to prove.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would it work?
I'm trying to think about how it would be done (if there was a requirement for real, non-sim IMC during PPL training).
The thought of a few training aircraft in cloud in the class G training area is clearly impossible. Would you do it in C, or IFR in G? Would there be any chance of the appropriate block clearance from ATC in a capital city?
I like the idea of grabbing an instructor and experiencing real IMC myself, but not sure how it would be done out of BK.
I believe I'd last more than 180 seconds before I lost it with my basic PPL, but perhaps therein lies the problem (foolhardy belief)?
The thought of a few training aircraft in cloud in the class G training area is clearly impossible. Would you do it in C, or IFR in G? Would there be any chance of the appropriate block clearance from ATC in a capital city?
I like the idea of grabbing an instructor and experiencing real IMC myself, but not sure how it would be done out of BK.
I believe I'd last more than 180 seconds before I lost it with my basic PPL, but perhaps therein lies the problem (foolhardy belief)?
Nothing stopping IFR training in Class G as long as separation can be assured (remaining between two radials / distances from a navaid with appropriate buffers, or height separation).
Occurrence is a general term which covers accidents and incidents which are divided into immediately reportable matters and routinely reportable matters.
As I said in my first post, safe IFR/IMC is all about training and recency. Without both, stick to "severe clear". It is my many years (~55 years) of IFR operation that inform my statements of fact, and they are that, facts, not opinions.
Fujii,
Do you or have you worked for CASA, because it sound/reads like you have had "the operation".
FTDK,
It is not hard to find the stats. for loss of control into IMC. Maybe you were the one-off exception, it doesn't change the history of lives lost after loss of control in IMC. There is no valid arguments against the basic premise of "178 Seconds To Live".
I believe I'd last more than 180 seconds before I lost it with my basic PPL, but perhaps therein lies the problem (foolhardy belief)?
Got it in one, has there ever been a pilot who thought: "Gee, there's a nice big cloud in front of my, I think I'll just head on in and kill myself". Of course not, they all thought they would get away with it. As the record shows, a foolhardy self-belief.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach
Such sarcastic remarks add nothing to the discussion. Done any Cat. 3b approaches lately?? Ever been qualified for one?? It is my extensive IFR/IMC experience that always dictated how I addressed the very small "instrument" component of PPL or basic CPL in the syllabus, and how it could best be used.
For your information, I was hand-flying ILS to 200'/1/2 mile viz in the early 1960, that was planning minima as well --- ie: we only planned for an alternate if it was worse than that. We regularly practiced GCAs to touchdown in actual conditions, as well as "under the hood".
I often enough landed for real off a GCA with a viz. of <400m, with no ceiling, at those sort of visibilities, cloudbase and ceiling are rather meaningless concepts.
Aircraft regularly used were Comanche, Apache, Aztec and DH Dove. And that was all legal in the UK in the 1960s.
There was no ILS minima below 300' until early 1970s for Australia (300'/1 mile+), if I remember correctly, and even then, it was confined to Qantas outside Australia, and DCA mandated coupled approaches for minima below 300', when the general minima anywhere else was 200'/ xxx viz.
Tootle pip!!
FTDK, It is not hard to find the stats. for loss of control into IMC.
In a 1954 study (180 - Degree Turn Experiment), the University of Illinois Institute of Aviation[4] found that 19 out of 20 non-instrument-rated subject pilots went into a graveyard spiral soon after entering simulated instrument conditions. The 20th pilot also lost control of his aircraft, but in another maneuver. The average time between onset of instrument conditions and loss of control was 178 seconds.
Maybe you were the one-off exception,
There is no valid arguments against the basic premise of "178 Seconds To Live".
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the whole point, training to not get into trouble in the first place, not being competent to extract yourself from trouble, having first demonstrated your incompetence in getting into trouble.
Thanks to computer flight sims its easy enuf for most pilots to become competent at the most basic IF. IFR is the catch.
Its one thing to be able to do basic IF though the trick is knowing that yer gotta be on it before you need it. When scud running be more on the dials and less eyes out.
Coupla examples...
-First time scud runner in high wing is working the end of the low scud cloud bank though terrain raises up so he takes the turn back to clear option. Still with eyes outside, turns left...
- FT scud runner flying closely along the coast at 500' due cloud and in a light drizzle and mists finds his way blocked by fog. With his eyes outside he turns away from the coast...
.
Its one thing to be able to do basic IF though the trick is knowing that yer gotta be on it before you need it. When scud running be more on the dials and less eyes out.
Coupla examples...
-First time scud runner in high wing is working the end of the low scud cloud bank though terrain raises up so he takes the turn back to clear option. Still with eyes outside, turns left...
- FT scud runner flying closely along the coast at 500' due cloud and in a light drizzle and mists finds his way blocked by fog. With his eyes outside he turns away from the coast...
.
FT scud runner flying closely along the coast at 500' due cloud and in a light drizzle and mists finds his way blocked by fog. With his eyes outside he turns away from the coast...
Do they teach PPL's the danger of that? I know I had to find out for myself.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots said about training etc.
I myself am a heavy flight sim user, so my scan skills are reasonably good. The bad part tho, is you lose that motion, the motion that makes your ears lie to you, and makes you feel nauseous when you concentrate on the clocks.
I've managed skillfully to get myself into this situation twice. 1st as a recently minted PPL scud running bass strait in a twin. Had the presence of mind to bring forward my training and let the autopilot fly it while i recovered my wits and give it instructions to fly us out.
The second time I was in a 172 so handflying, low level over terrain, target airfield in sight. The cloud just dumped itself to the ground. I initiated responses and gave myself the leans within 5 seconds...got everything sorted from there tho. (obviously)
I didn't get it the first time really, but what I took away from the second experience was just how fast it really happens. I think this is where we have the 196 seconds to live tale.
Its not that the pilot lacks the ability/training to execute a 180 degree turn and fly back out. Its the training into how dangerous VMC into IMC is, it drums you into an immediate action to remedy the situation, and that gives you the leans straight up.
I'm not excited about doing it again, but experience survived, i know my response will be hmm, instead of F*CK and instant control inputs.
I myself am a heavy flight sim user, so my scan skills are reasonably good. The bad part tho, is you lose that motion, the motion that makes your ears lie to you, and makes you feel nauseous when you concentrate on the clocks.
I've managed skillfully to get myself into this situation twice. 1st as a recently minted PPL scud running bass strait in a twin. Had the presence of mind to bring forward my training and let the autopilot fly it while i recovered my wits and give it instructions to fly us out.
The second time I was in a 172 so handflying, low level over terrain, target airfield in sight. The cloud just dumped itself to the ground. I initiated responses and gave myself the leans within 5 seconds...got everything sorted from there tho. (obviously)
I didn't get it the first time really, but what I took away from the second experience was just how fast it really happens. I think this is where we have the 196 seconds to live tale.
Its not that the pilot lacks the ability/training to execute a 180 degree turn and fly back out. Its the training into how dangerous VMC into IMC is, it drums you into an immediate action to remedy the situation, and that gives you the leans straight up.
I'm not excited about doing it again, but experience survived, i know my response will be hmm, instead of F*CK and instant control inputs.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't had a chance to dig out the original paper but I will try to.
The aircraft was a Bonanza, loaded to MTOW at the aft CG limit.
EQUIPMENT IN THE AIRPLANE
In the experiment it was decided to use only those instruments and
equipment specified in Civil Air Regulation 43.30 for visual flight rules,
plus a turn indicator. Therefore in equipping a standard Beechcraft C-35
for these case studies, the artificial horizon, the directional gyro, and the
rate-of-climb indicators were covered
BASIS OF SELECTION
The bases of selection for the volunteer case study subjects were that
they should ( 1 ) be representative as to chronological age — the group
selected ranged in age from 19 to 60 years, (2) have had no previous
instrument experience under either simulated or actual conditions,
(3) have had a minimum of experience in the Beechcraft Bonanza
None of the students had soloed a Bonanza.
It is an interesting study, but I don't think you can conclude much about how long VFR pilots last in IMC in a real situation.
Certainly they sometimes crash, but what percentage of incidents we don't know.
What looks like a bad OCR version of the study is here:
https://archive.org/stream/180degree...1brya_djvu.txt
"The aircraft was a Bonanza, loaded to MTOW at the aft CG limit."
".. a standard Beechcraft C35.."
Possibly, even a bit more challenging as you'll know that the CG heads aft as fuel is consumed with V tail Bonanzas.
".. a standard Beechcraft C35.."
Possibly, even a bit more challenging as you'll know that the CG heads aft as fuel is consumed with V tail Bonanzas.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTOW at the aft limit was my paraphrase, they stayed within limits during the flight and landed when the cg was calculated to reach the aft limit.
The actual loading is documented in the study.
The actual loading is documented in the study.
There is no valid arguments against the basic premise of "178 Seconds To Live"
"the artificial horizon, the directional gyro, and the rate-of-climb indicators were covered"
No, not really! The test was carried out in a V-tail Bonanza - an aeroplane that has neutral stability in the rolling plane, making it a bit more of a challenge to hand fly in IMC than your average Cessna!
And so the test was essentially, "Close your eyes and lets see how long you can hold straight and level"! - a difficult task for even an experienced IFR pilot!
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 7th Feb 2016 at 12:06.
I am always a bit frustrated when the 178 seconds to live number is quoted. It is one of those cases where the headline, quoted out of context, makes the situation sound very different to the detail, a bit like the origin of the phrase "the lucky country".
As pointed out above it was the average time to lose control for pilot who had had no previous instrument training and without any instruments. I believe that further studies showed that with a small amount of training and basic instruments that the average time to lose control significantly increased.
I understand that this research was the reason for the introduction of 3 hours of instrument time in the FAA PPL but cant categorically confirm this to be the case.
As pointed out above it was the average time to lose control for pilot who had had no previous instrument training and without any instruments. I believe that further studies showed that with a small amount of training and basic instruments that the average time to lose control significantly increased.
I understand that this research was the reason for the introduction of 3 hours of instrument time in the FAA PPL but cant categorically confirm this to be the case.