VFR Into IMC Training?
Thread Starter
VFR Into IMC Training?
Without wishing to pre empt the findings of any inquiry into the crash, in bad weather of a Piper PA28 off Point Lonsdale, I wonder if a modification to the VFR PPL training syllabus might be a good thing? Would actual experience of flying VFR into IMC perhaps modify a pilots behaviour in a beneficial way?
What I am wondering is if the segment of the PPL syllabus regarding flying in IMC conditions included actually experiencing IMC - in a suitable aircraft with an appropriately trained instructor?
Lets face it, foggles don't do much. They do not remotely simulate the loss of situational awareness that must be part of suddenly flying IMC. There are always visual cues despite them. In addition, as far as I an recall, the training under foggles does not specifically teach a pilot to perform an escape manoeuvre - rate one turn 180 degrees, climb, descent etc.
I hasten to add that I have never flown into IMC, but I have had a few seconds of spatial disorientation taking off from Point Cook on a winter afternoon with grey skies, grey still sea, flat light and slight haze - all of a sudden no visible horizon! It hits very fast and is bloody disconcerting.
This approach might be considered similar to the (non) training regarding spins - a demonstration, in my case in an aerobat with simply succeeded in scaring the crap out of me, but perhaps that was the desired training outcome.
I am aware of the argument that a little training is a dangerous thing. My response to that is that no training is even worse. People will intellectualise about how they might respond to IMC especially if they have the latest gear with synthetic vision and an intelligent autopilot, however my opinion is that all that technology is going to be useless in the hands of a terrified pilot.
Would VFR pilots receive a positive safety benefit from experiencing flying into IMC under controlled conditions? What do you think?
What I am wondering is if the segment of the PPL syllabus regarding flying in IMC conditions included actually experiencing IMC - in a suitable aircraft with an appropriately trained instructor?
Lets face it, foggles don't do much. They do not remotely simulate the loss of situational awareness that must be part of suddenly flying IMC. There are always visual cues despite them. In addition, as far as I an recall, the training under foggles does not specifically teach a pilot to perform an escape manoeuvre - rate one turn 180 degrees, climb, descent etc.
I hasten to add that I have never flown into IMC, but I have had a few seconds of spatial disorientation taking off from Point Cook on a winter afternoon with grey skies, grey still sea, flat light and slight haze - all of a sudden no visible horizon! It hits very fast and is bloody disconcerting.
This approach might be considered similar to the (non) training regarding spins - a demonstration, in my case in an aerobat with simply succeeded in scaring the crap out of me, but perhaps that was the desired training outcome.
I am aware of the argument that a little training is a dangerous thing. My response to that is that no training is even worse. People will intellectualise about how they might respond to IMC especially if they have the latest gear with synthetic vision and an intelligent autopilot, however my opinion is that all that technology is going to be useless in the hands of a terrified pilot.
Would VFR pilots receive a positive safety benefit from experiencing flying into IMC under controlled conditions? What do you think?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know of IFR pilots, who, during their IFR training, still hadnt flown in proper IMC.. so i think there would be little hope of getting instructors to get PPL students into cloud if they shy away from taking IFR students into cloud.
Someone obviously thought it was a good idea to reduce amount IF training required for the PPL! 
Mine did! 
In addition, as far as I an recall, the training under foggles does not specifically teach a pilot to perform an escape manoeuvre - rate one turn 180 degrees, climb, descent etc.
Yes, I reckon it's an essential part of training for anyone who might be flying in conditions that could lead to disorientation (which is anyone really when it comes down to it, not just NVFR or IFR) - the ability, on realising something's not right, to get on the instruments, recover from an unusual attitude if you're in one, and establish safe flight, be it a level turn, a climb, or whatever's needed.
Also, respect for how quickly things can go wrong needs to be drummed in, and the need for some kind of plan of action, escape route, safe heading, safety heights etc etc - simple self preservation when you're used to thinking about those things, but a real trap if you're not.
Understanding and having strategies for coping with illusions is also a must.
There's a reasonable argument that a 'some' instrument training gives pilots a false sense of security, but if it's accompanied by emphasis on good airmanship (or HUF / risk management in the new speak) and not letting yourself get sucked into bad situations, I think the benefits are clear.
Also, respect for how quickly things can go wrong needs to be drummed in, and the need for some kind of plan of action, escape route, safe heading, safety heights etc etc - simple self preservation when you're used to thinking about those things, but a real trap if you're not.
Understanding and having strategies for coping with illusions is also a must.
There's a reasonable argument that a 'some' instrument training gives pilots a false sense of security, but if it's accompanied by emphasis on good airmanship (or HUF / risk management in the new speak) and not letting yourself get sucked into bad situations, I think the benefits are clear.
Scaring the crap out of people is actually a really useful tool, Sunfish. Probably why you've never gone anywhere near a spin after one was demonstrated to you.
The same demo can be done fairly easily for IMC disorientation - in VMC.
Simply ask the student if they think they can tell the right way up without seeing a horizon, and nearly all respond yes. Get them to put their head in their lap with their eyes closed and commence a very slow increasing left roll (at a rate below the vestibular system threshold) for about 20 seconds. From at least 30-40AoB, then roll the aircraft right very quickly back to wings level. Fly along for ten seconds and ask them which way you are turning.
They always say you are banking hard right, and it f**** with their head to open their eyes and see the aircraft in perfect wings level flight.
Certainly seemed enough of a demo to most of my students to keep them well away from IMC.
The same demo can be done fairly easily for IMC disorientation - in VMC.
Simply ask the student if they think they can tell the right way up without seeing a horizon, and nearly all respond yes. Get them to put their head in their lap with their eyes closed and commence a very slow increasing left roll (at a rate below the vestibular system threshold) for about 20 seconds. From at least 30-40AoB, then roll the aircraft right very quickly back to wings level. Fly along for ten seconds and ask them which way you are turning.
They always say you are banking hard right, and it f**** with their head to open their eyes and see the aircraft in perfect wings level flight.
Certainly seemed enough of a demo to most of my students to keep them well away from IMC.
In addition, as far as I an recall, the training under foggles does not specifically teach a pilot to perform an escape manoeuvre - rate one turn 180 degrees, climb, descent etc.
My AFR is fresh in my mind as I only did it recently and it included:
- Flying under the hood straight and level
- 30 and 45 degree turns under the hood
- A full 360 and a rate 1 turn
- Recovery from unusual attitudes whilst under the hood
- Following of instructions whilst under the hood, which included climbing and descending and turning a set number of degrees
If you feel that you have not done this adequately in your initial training and had it followed up in your AFR refreshers, I urge you to discuss this further with your instructor to ensure that you receive the adequate further training/review. Rather than do a nav on your next AFR which mind you is not required each time (you can alternate between a nav and local flight), ask to stick to the local area to work on your instrument skills. If you are not confident to be able to perform a 180 degree turn or recover from unusual attitudes, you are only cheating yourself and putting the lives of your potential passengers at risk. It's up to you to further educate yourself.
Lets face it, foggles don't do much. They do not remotely simulate the loss of situational awareness that must be part of suddenly flying IMC. There are always visual cues despite them.
I know pilots that without exception, always experience the "leans" or worse during the hood work which leads me to believe it's being done properly.
It's your decision as to whether you want to spend additional funds in an IFR equipped aircraft with an IFR rated instructor on an IMC day for the purposes of furthering your own education and compliance, however please don't wish for this financial burden to be placed upon all others.
Thread Starter
Slippery Pete, that might work.
My problem with some of the training is that it doesn't confront real world scenarios.
For example the stall/spin example should have been a demonstration (at safe altitude) of a "base to final" stall/spin flaps extended, now throttle back on approach, overshooting the turn, tighten the turn, tighten some more, pull….. Bang!
I still wonder at what I wasn't taught, which makes every flight with an instructor a voyage into new territory, last one taunt me a spiral descending turn as one might make if looking to get through a hole in cloud.
My problem with some of the training is that it doesn't confront real world scenarios.
For example the stall/spin example should have been a demonstration (at safe altitude) of a "base to final" stall/spin flaps extended, now throttle back on approach, overshooting the turn, tighten the turn, tighten some more, pull….. Bang!
I still wonder at what I wasn't taught, which makes every flight with an instructor a voyage into new territory, last one taunt me a spiral descending turn as one might make if looking to get through a hole in cloud.
Thread Starter
Squawk, you can guess where i did my AFR ad I may well have done the goggles thing on reflection. However it was not done as a series of linked manoeuvres . With goggles if it is a bright day, no matter what you do, shadows give your attitude away and there is nothing you can do about it.
I am very conscious of my limitations, I haven't flown for Six months and I am currently planning a full days work for an AFR and then some and finding a school/operation in the local area where I can fly once a week or so.
I am very conscious of my limitations, I haven't flown for Six months and I am currently planning a full days work for an AFR and then some and finding a school/operation in the local area where I can fly once a week or so.
You are right Sunfish, foggles are a useful tool but don't simulate IMC well in daylight conditions.
Foggles can be made much more useful by doing the exercise I showed above when someone first goes under the foggles. So by the time they lift their head and take control, they already have a bad case of the leans. Then they have to spend the next 5 mins fighting their inner ear and learning to align their brain with the AH.
If they start off in straight and level flight and put the foggles on in daylight - any idiot can do that.
Foggles can be made much more useful by doing the exercise I showed above when someone first goes under the foggles. So by the time they lift their head and take control, they already have a bad case of the leans. Then they have to spend the next 5 mins fighting their inner ear and learning to align their brain with the AH.
If they start off in straight and level flight and put the foggles on in daylight - any idiot can do that.
Aeroplane advanced manoeuvres
(i) incipient stall;
(ii) stall without power applied;
(iii) stall from straight and level;
(iv) stall in the approach configuration;
(v) stall while turning; and
(vi) at least one of the following:
(A) stall with full power applied;
(B) stall while climbing;
(C) stall while descending.
(i) incipient stall;
(ii) stall without power applied;
(iii) stall from straight and level;
(iv) stall in the approach configuration;
(v) stall while turning; and
(vi) at least one of the following:
(A) stall with full power applied;
(B) stall while climbing;
(C) stall while descending.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I did the majority of my CIR without foggles, it was that damned cloudy turbulent and wet that I became quite fond of IMC.
I try to fly to TOC by hand not AP (ATC/workload etc depending) because I enjoy doing it, and keeps my hand in.
I try to fly to TOC by hand not AP (ATC/workload etc depending) because I enjoy doing it, and keeps my hand in.
Like much flying training, the foggles thing is a matter of playing the game. If you cheat then you are the loser! I think the IMC/simulated IMC is mostly mind over matter. If you are wearing foggles in VMC and have an instructor beside you then mentally it is quite different from flying VFR into IMC and ****ting yourself, unless you have trained and practiced until you are comfortable with IMC.
After 29 renewals of my instrument rating, I much prefer real IMC to simulated using foggles or hoods or whatever. They give you tunnel vision whereas if you are not ****ting bricks about being in IMC then you can sit back and relax and take in the whole instrument panel as you scan.
In IMC my "cockpit cocoon" becomes my whole world!
Dr
After 29 renewals of my instrument rating, I much prefer real IMC to simulated using foggles or hoods or whatever. They give you tunnel vision whereas if you are not ****ting bricks about being in IMC then you can sit back and relax and take in the whole instrument panel as you scan.
In IMC my "cockpit cocoon" becomes my whole world!
Dr
Folks,
First of all, I have always worked on the assumption that the outcome of flying training is to produce an adequately competent pilot that does not represent an unacceptable threat to passengers, those in other aircraft or on the ground, and to him/herself, in that order.
That being the case, the whole purpose of "stall training" (it should be low speed flight, including stalling and recovery, per FAA and Flight Safety) is to not get in the situation, unintentionally, in the first place (something CASA does not understand, see Part 61 MOS).
Not to competently recover from a situation where you have just demonstrated your incompetence.
Remember the old saw: A superior pilot is a pilot who never gets into a situation where he/she has to demonstrate that they are a superior pilot.
You are either TRAINED AND CURRENT for IFR, or you are not.
If you only had an instrument rating years ago, you are only slightly less of a menace in IMC than if you had only ever been a VFR pilot ---- dead is dead, regardless of ratings.
Being current is absolutely critical. Right now, despite having been qualified down to Cat.3b, my minima now is "severe clear", CAVU is preferred to CAVOK.
There is just enough exposure to "under the hood" in the PPL & CPL to engender a false sense of capability.
Accordingly, at the end of training, I have always taken my students into real IMC, always a bit of fair weather slightly bumpy Cu.
This is where 178 Seconds to Live is wrong. I have always timed "Handing over" to loss of control, the best was around one minute, usually less.
So you are effectively dead when you lose control, the balance of 178 seconds is only the time it takes to hit the ground.
Having had the opportunity, during training, to spin/spiral out of control in IMC, none of my many students has ever had a VMC into IMC accident.
Several have landed in paddocks when that was the alternative, because they already knew, in advance, what the outcome of flying into IMC would be.
They created a job for the insurance adjuster, not the Coroner. Incontestably a better outcome.
Tootle pip!!
First of all, I have always worked on the assumption that the outcome of flying training is to produce an adequately competent pilot that does not represent an unacceptable threat to passengers, those in other aircraft or on the ground, and to him/herself, in that order.
That being the case, the whole purpose of "stall training" (it should be low speed flight, including stalling and recovery, per FAA and Flight Safety) is to not get in the situation, unintentionally, in the first place (something CASA does not understand, see Part 61 MOS).
Not to competently recover from a situation where you have just demonstrated your incompetence.
Remember the old saw: A superior pilot is a pilot who never gets into a situation where he/she has to demonstrate that they are a superior pilot.
You are either TRAINED AND CURRENT for IFR, or you are not.
If you only had an instrument rating years ago, you are only slightly less of a menace in IMC than if you had only ever been a VFR pilot ---- dead is dead, regardless of ratings.
Being current is absolutely critical. Right now, despite having been qualified down to Cat.3b, my minima now is "severe clear", CAVU is preferred to CAVOK.
There is just enough exposure to "under the hood" in the PPL & CPL to engender a false sense of capability.
Accordingly, at the end of training, I have always taken my students into real IMC, always a bit of fair weather slightly bumpy Cu.
This is where 178 Seconds to Live is wrong. I have always timed "Handing over" to loss of control, the best was around one minute, usually less.
So you are effectively dead when you lose control, the balance of 178 seconds is only the time it takes to hit the ground.
Having had the opportunity, during training, to spin/spiral out of control in IMC, none of my many students has ever had a VMC into IMC accident.
Several have landed in paddocks when that was the alternative, because they already knew, in advance, what the outcome of flying into IMC would be.
They created a job for the insurance adjuster, not the Coroner. Incontestably a better outcome.
Tootle pip!!
Hear! Hear! 
I can not help but think that maybe this 178 seconds is a bit of a misnomer.
If I asked here how many people have had VFR into IMC experiences when they weren't qualified for IMC conditions and walked away to tell the tale, you might find that the number is very high.
This includes flying through a hole and accidentally hitting cloud before breaking through the top.... seeing blue sky above the cloud and thinking it might be easy just to punch up there because it's not that thick... flying too close to the cloud up from under it and ending up in it... not finding a hole and descending through the cloud.
I would make an educated guess based on my knowledge and having spoken to many pilots over the years that the instances of survival far outweigh the opposite.
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?
Accident or occurrence?
Nothing personal, I'm just reluctant to believe that 178 seconds in inevitable despite what we are regularly told.
If I asked here how many people have had VFR into IMC experiences when they weren't qualified for IMC conditions and walked away to tell the tale, you might find that the number is very high.
This includes flying through a hole and accidentally hitting cloud before breaking through the top.... seeing blue sky above the cloud and thinking it might be easy just to punch up there because it's not that thick... flying too close to the cloud up from under it and ending up in it... not finding a hole and descending through the cloud.
I would make an educated guess based on my knowledge and having spoken to many pilots over the years that the instances of survival far outweigh the opposite.
This is where 178 Seconds to Live is wrong. I have always timed "Handing over" to loss of control, the best was around one minute, usually less.
So you are effectively dead when you lose control, the balance of 178 seconds is only the time it takes to hit the ground.
So you are effectively dead when you lose control, the balance of 178 seconds is only the time it takes to hit the ground.
Having had the opportunity, during training, to spin/spiral out of control in IMC, none of my many students has ever had a VMC into IMC accident.
Nothing personal, I'm just reluctant to believe that 178 seconds in inevitable despite what we are regularly told.
Without drawing conclusions into the possible cause of Friday's tragic event, I believe that any increase in IF training at the PPL level would only be a knee jerk reaction. Adding more IF hours to the PPL training requirements won't achieve anything. Once the pilot looses IF currency the limited hours done during the training will do nothing to get a pilot out of a bind if they end up in inadvertent IMC, mainly due to the instrument scan being inadequate due to the lack of reciency, not to mention the aircraft may not adequately equiped if it's a VFR aircraft.
We need to be looking at the potential threats that trigger VFR pilots ending up in IMC. Pilots have lots of tools available now days to help them make the right decisions before flight in order to make a decision to go or not, or delay. I can think of at least four other recent accidents where VFR pilots have ended up in inadvertent IMC resulting in fatal outcomes.
We need to be looking at the potential threats that trigger VFR pilots ending up in IMC. Pilots have lots of tools available now days to help them make the right decisions before flight in order to make a decision to go or not, or delay. I can think of at least four other recent accidents where VFR pilots have ended up in inadvertent IMC resulting in fatal outcomes.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adding more IF hours to the PPL training requirements won't achieve anything. Once the pilot looses IF currency the limited hours done during the training will do nothing to get a pilot out of a bind if they end up in inadvertent IMC, mainly due to the instrument scan being inadequate due to the lack of recency, not to mention the aircraft may not adequately equipped if it's a VFR aircraft.
Forget instrument training using Foggles or Hoods. People don't normally deliberately "cheat" on purpose. What happens is that it is very easy to see outside the cockpit of a Cessna single via natural peripheral vision even though you are trying to concentrate on flying on instruments. The slightest view of a horizon will cause you to "cheat" no matter how true are your intentions.
Same with the technique used by some flying instructors when teaching unusual attitudes. They get the student to close his eyes and look down while the instructor sets up the UA. This would never happen in real life i.e, looking down at your feet with eyes closed.
The purported reason for the eyes closed is to ensure the student cannot see outside while the instructor sets up the UA. This suggests that peripheral is possible during "under the hood" simulated instrument flying. This doesn't happen in a FTD
There is far more value in practicing instrument flying and unusual attitude recovery training in a typical general aviation FTD "simulator" like a Microsoft Flight Simulator. You cannot cheat and simulated IMC is always available. It is less expensive, too. Encourage student pilots early in their flying (after first solo) so that by the time the student has reached PPL standard, they have 10-15 hours in the IFR simulator. Private pilots should practice in a simulator regularly if they are serious about being competent on instruments. It doesn't have to be in the real aeroplane.
Last edited by A37575; 2nd Feb 2016 at 08:45.
FWIW I used to expose all my students to real IMC nearing the completion of their training.
Pilots have lots of tools available now days to help them make the right decisions before flight in order to make a decision to go or not, or delay.
