VFR Into IMC Training?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Seems to me the key issue is the mental state of the PIC going into IMC. Consider two situations:
Run out of options (or a planned IFR). Positive decision to go into IMC and work the needles.
Over water, low, with low cloud then rain takes the horizon away ahead - turn away and more rain leaves only a bit of view of water below during the turn and that then that starts to go, then just rain.
In the second situation the pilot is behind the plane and the weather (and often the terrain), no real decision but desperately looking for visual reference with occasion looking at by now meaningless dials.
Run out of options (or a planned IFR). Positive decision to go into IMC and work the needles.
Over water, low, with low cloud then rain takes the horizon away ahead - turn away and more rain leaves only a bit of view of water below during the turn and that then that starts to go, then just rain.
In the second situation the pilot is behind the plane and the weather (and often the terrain), no real decision but desperately looking for visual reference with occasion looking at by now meaningless dials.
Folks,
Jaz24zzk's post has got it right. Re-read it!!
My comment about "178 seconds to live" referred to the basic premise of loss of control in IMC, for an insufficiently trained and current pilot, not the conditions of the study. As I thought I had made clear, my experience is that control is lost in less than one minute, it just takes a while to die.
Given the attitude so many of you display, trying to rationalize away the number of fatal accidents of VFR into IMC, you clearly believe it won't happen to you, because you are better.
Got news for you, you ain't ---- this is a great example of "You can always tell a pilot, but you can't tell him much".
And it is almost invariably a "him", I have always found female students far less gung ho.
Tootle pip!!
Jaz24zzk's post has got it right. Re-read it!!
My comment about "178 seconds to live" referred to the basic premise of loss of control in IMC, for an insufficiently trained and current pilot, not the conditions of the study. As I thought I had made clear, my experience is that control is lost in less than one minute, it just takes a while to die.
Given the attitude so many of you display, trying to rationalize away the number of fatal accidents of VFR into IMC, you clearly believe it won't happen to you, because you are better.
Got news for you, you ain't ---- this is a great example of "You can always tell a pilot, but you can't tell him much".
And it is almost invariably a "him", I have always found female students far less gung ho.
Tootle pip!!
Heh, I think there might be some 'crossed wires' between posters here. FTDK and Leady might need to re-look their positions..
When I think scud running I automatically take it as a given that there is a basic A/H etc type panel to work from. Apart from VH rego, even the average Oz ultralights of today has more varietys of electro wizardry on the dash then the first Boeing 747. Though therein lays a problem.
Scud running with-out some sort of an IF panel... as the old study says, coupla minutes and yer gone...
.
When I think scud running I automatically take it as a given that there is a basic A/H etc type panel to work from. Apart from VH rego, even the average Oz ultralights of today has more varietys of electro wizardry on the dash then the first Boeing 747. Though therein lays a problem.
Scud running with-out some sort of an IF panel... as the old study says, coupla minutes and yer gone...
.
via jas24zzk:
...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 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...
Memory's vague now, though I think I were up to my first or second renewal before I got some leans exposure. So for me, and I'm guessing others, during initial training it were a theoretical education.
One way to stop the leans happening to a VFR scud runner is to be mainly on the dails well before yer need to do that critical 180º turn.
.
Run out of options (or a planned IFR). Positive decision to go into IMC and work the needles.
Over water, low, with low cloud then rain takes the horizon away ahead... snip... no real decision but desperately looking for visual reference with occasion looking at by now meaningless dials.
Over water, low, with low cloud then rain takes the horizon away ahead... snip... no real decision but desperately looking for visual reference with occasion looking at by now meaningless dials.
Heh, I think there might be some 'crossed wires' between posters here. FTDK and Leady might need to re-look their positions..
Leadie is sayingthat a PPL with the currently required minimum of 2 hrs basic IF training who flies VFR into IMC, "my experience is that control is lost in less than one minute"!
While I, on the other hand, am saying that that should not necessarily be the case if they keep their head, don't panic - and fly the aeroplane on instruments to some pre-thought out escape plan! Even less so if they are old enough to have done the minimum of 5 hrs basic IF for their PPL which used to be the requirement until some bunny had a better idea!
Its even easier than it used to be because these days navigation is not an issue! Who flies without at least some sort of portable GPS?
Continued VFR into IMC represents a breakdown in good decision making, but it should not necessarily result in fatalities!
The point is that it is not a decision anyone needs to make, the VMC minima are there, the decision has already been made for you.
OK if someone is learning to fly in the average GA training aircraft then how are you going to take them into IMC legally? I introduce the IF component by making them fly with their eyes shut and see how long they can stay straight and level, this can vary from a few seconds to a couple of minutes, every student is different.
Fact is if they are disorientated they are not going to suddenly regain their orientation and effect a perfect recovery from a UA. A bit of simulated IF experience, (with thorough briefing on its limitations) with the foggles should be enough to get them out of the poo before the poo gets too thick and they run out of options.
Bear in mind that there are people flying around in little aeroplanes with passengers with NO minimum hours requirement for simulated IF. This is one of the big differences between the PPL and the RPL-with-various-add-ons or RA-Aus.
OK if someone is learning to fly in the average GA training aircraft then how are you going to take them into IMC legally? I introduce the IF component by making them fly with their eyes shut and see how long they can stay straight and level, this can vary from a few seconds to a couple of minutes, every student is different.
Fact is if they are disorientated they are not going to suddenly regain their orientation and effect a perfect recovery from a UA. A bit of simulated IF experience, (with thorough briefing on its limitations) with the foggles should be enough to get them out of the poo before the poo gets too thick and they run out of options.
Bear in mind that there are people flying around in little aeroplanes with passengers with NO minimum hours requirement for simulated IF. This is one of the big differences between the PPL and the RPL-with-various-add-ons or RA-Aus.
OK if someone is learning to fly in the average GA training aircraft then how are you going to take them into IMC legally?
You can't, but I have always thought that keeping people alive was a tad more important than keeping legal. The handful of hours in basic training is just enough that the result is probably worse than none at all, hence all my ab nitio students spinning/spiraling out of cloud.
"Back in the day", the DCA blokes knew exactly what I was doing, in those days you could actually have a rational conversation with them. There was no shortage of "tsk, tsking", but no big stick. They knew damned well I was right, they were more interested in promoting sensible operations than mindless "compliance".
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).
My dear chap, you are displaying your abysmal ignorance again. Glass G is uncontrolled. Which bit don't you understand, the un or the controlled.
There is NEVER separation assurance in G, there is no separation in G of which to be assured of. And, by the way, there is absolutely no legal basis for the highly dangerous "pilot arranged separation" or whatever you want to call it, that is common in Australia in G.
Interesting case of the failure of a pilot by an ATO in a test just recently --- said candidate didn't conduct the completely legally unsupported and for which there are, of course, no standard, "self separation procedure", to the satisfaction of the ATO.
Believe me, this sort of nonsense only happens in Australia.
Tootle pip!!
Arm,
My dear chap, you are displaying your abysmal ignorance again. Glass G is uncontrolled. Which bit don't you understand, the un or the controlled.
My dear chap, you are displaying your abysmal ignorance again. Glass G is uncontrolled. Which bit don't you understand, the un or the controlled.
If in Class G, in IMC, operating near a navaid, I say to another IFR aircraft in the same area 'I'll maintain a height block 5000 - 6000 within 5 miles of the aid and you stick between 3000 - 4000', or 'I'm operating between the 090 and 180 radial reference the XX VOR between 5 and 10 miles, request you remain the same distance the other side of the aid between the 270 and 360 radial', that would be IFR separating from one another in Class G, wouldn't it?
Or heaven forbid if two IFR aircraft turn up to do an instrument approach which commences at, say, 5000 ft in Class G at around the same time and one says 'I'll remain in the hold at 6000, request you call me when visual or on completion of the missed approach', crazily enough they would be ensuring separation.
By the way, LeadSled, what do you do when you arrive in a CTAF in IMC and there's someone else there? I hope you don't do anything 'illegal' like trying to ensure you don't hit the other person by arranging a separation plan over the radio. You must have some other means of doing it, I suppose.
And what do you do about the people who don't have radio, because they don't need it? You might be IFR, and you might be in IMC, but that doesn't mean everyone in your vicinity and that of the aerodrome are IFR in IMC.
Mate, I asked what you would do in the two aircraft in a CTAF IMC situation and you haven't bothered to answer, perhaps we should deal with that point first?
I was merely trying to make the point - unsuccessfully it appears - that dealing with the known risks is not a way of mitigating all of the risks. Arranging self-separation in G in the vicinity of an aerodrome may give the participants a warm inner glow, but they should not labour under the misconception that everyone in the vicinity is participating.
Leadsled, you still haven't said how you deal with being in IMC at a CTAF with other IFR around - I guess we're going to continue beating around the bush on that one.
In your inimitable way, you insulted me right off the bat a couple of posts ago, talking about my abysmal lack of understanding, so don't be surprised that I'm taking exception to your lofty tone.
However, I would be mightily interested to see what you reckon we ought to do differently - maybe ADSB for everyone and a heap of controllers providing positive separation everywhere perhaps?
Or perhaps you've never had to sort out your own separation in anger?
In your inimitable way, you insulted me right off the bat a couple of posts ago, talking about my abysmal lack of understanding, so don't be surprised that I'm taking exception to your lofty tone.
However, I would be mightily interested to see what you reckon we ought to do differently - maybe ADSB for everyone and a heap of controllers providing positive separation everywhere perhaps?
Or perhaps you've never had to sort out your own separation in anger?
If you are in IMC, anybody within 1000' of you should be either on the ground or on the radio on the appropriate frequency.
otherwise, they're operating illegally.
otherwise, they're operating illegally.
[AOTW: Leadsled and Lead Balloon are not one and the same.]
if you're practising an approach, then no, because all aerodromes with published approaches are CTAF-R or controlled.
AOTW: No worries. The issues are always worth arguing about, anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, but CASR 139.030 says that you can't have an instrument approach without the aerodrome being certified or registered.
hence, everybody is on radio (except for specific radio fail procedures).
hence, everybody is on radio (except for specific radio fail procedures).
The word "except" being the most important one in your post. Aircraft without serviceable VHF may, in some circumstances, lawfully operate at and in the vicinity of a registered or certified aerodrome. Hence silence does not mean nil traffic (even excluding finger trouble).