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.

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!!

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...



.

Probably one of the critical IF experiences to be had if yer 'lucky' enough to have it happen during training.

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.




.

This is spot on.... If you plan to go in it, you'll consciously set yourself up for it, (like an IFR rated pilot would, align the AH, confirm straight and level etc etc), but when it happens quickly and you're potentially already in a turn or otherwise, it will all go downhill quickly from there.

No, I don't think the wires are crossed at all!

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.

CP,
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".

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.

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!!

Nothing like a bit of condescending comment from someone who's clearly a lovely bloke! And which bit didn't you understand about what I wrote?

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.

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.

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?

But there can be others in VMC, more than 1,000' below the cloud base of the IMC in which you're operating, and not required to have a radio, can there not? I thought the scenario was practising approaches, during which you may pop out of that IMC? We may at crossed purposes.

[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.

Ah, sorry about the mixup - I just get a bit riled up when old mate chips in with his pontification. Cheers

But there are exceptions to all rules, including the "R" in "CTAF-R" (And CTAF-R is, as far as I am aware, no longer the terminology de jour. I think this week it's "certified" or "registered" or "military" or something like that.)

AOTW: No worries. The issues are always worth arguing about, anyway. :ok:

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).

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).

The mitigating factor there is that VFR aircraft shouldn't be in cloud (and most particularly ones without radios shouldn't be scud running), and when IFR aircraft get visual they should look out the window.

This doesn't preclude conflictions, I know, but if there's a better alternative practically available, let's hear it (Leadsled?).

Any chance of a straight answer to a couple of direct questions, Leadsled?

What do you do to ensure separation (notwithstanding the legality or otherwise) when IMC in Class G and there is other IFR traffic about?

What is your suggested practical alternative method for IFR aircraft to separate themselves in Class G, if what's currently done isn't acceptable?

I must say that your online manner annoys me, and if your aim is to seriously discuss these issues I think you need to get off your high horse. Cut the rhetoric and just talk plainly.

And your authority for this is? The concept of a handful of hours is not to make bloggs proficient in IFR flying, but to give him an a focus and understanding of how he could get himself out of the situation should he ever find the need. To say it is worse than none at all is absolute crap. To have had none is to have no first hand experience and leaves just anecdotal advice to fall back on.

Perhaps you might find it within that all emcompassing thing called Airmanship. Highly dangerous, .....good grief!!!

Arm,
Too easy, how about just complying with CAR 166 as appropriate, and the "Rules of the Air" in general, in the full knowledge that it is Class G, with all that that implies.
And, of course, using common sense, which many of you want to dress up as as some kind of "secret pilot's business" called "airmanship".
But never kid yourself that there is any "separation assurance" in Class G airspace. The nonsense I hear coming from cockpits of certain regional carriers absolutely astounds me at times, ignorance broadcast for all to hear. Top of the list is effectively demanding self assumed priority because they are "RPT".
There is one bloke (not a Regional Captain) who is always about 10 miles behind the aeroplane he flies, but he is really a great ace at procedures, regularly making a 10m inbound call entering downwind. All the "boxes" have been ticked, and a complete waste of time for somebody trying to get a handle on the traffic in the area.
Tootle pip!!

Square Bear,
If you could read and comprehend my previous posts on this thread., ALL my ab nitio student have had first hand experience of what the outcome is going to be if they try IMC without being fully trained and CURRENT.
As a result of my "strategy of positive and effective reinforcement of the underlying core fundamental message",(don'tcha just love b***sh1t bingo) they are all still alive.
Tootle pip!!

Right, so after all that gab, you would just do what we all do. Thanks for the blinding insight, you're an asset to aviation. :rolleyes:

Yet again Leadie your experience is the direct opposite of mine. I have mixed with regional carriers a lot (eg Roma, Weipa, Thursday Is, Mt Isa, Cloncurry, Emerald, Longreach etc) and have generally found them to be very professional. In fact I can't think of a single incident when RPT have tried to pull rank on me.

I generally volunteer of give way to RPT cause they are on a schedule and I'm not, but as those who know me can testify, if I got even a hint of an expectation of priority because they are RPT, I would do my best to close the door on that - just to make the point! :E

LeadSled,

it is admirable that you go the yards with your students and enforce the folly of entering IMC untrained, however my point is that whilst nothing short of an instrument rating gives proficiency a few hours "under the hood" is not more dangerous than none (your point).

With regards the "self separation", nowhere is it mandated that aviation is about eliminating risk, it is about mitigating it. Otherwise we would all sit in the aircraft at the field and not get airborne. Self separation, when there is no controller is just that, mitigation of risk.

And for every "d*ckhead" you have allegedly have come across in an RPT machine, I bet one could find an equal amount in the GA field, and in fact the ones in RPT in all likelihood came from GA and were d*ckheads there as well.

Square Bear,
On that we can both agree. Frankly, compared to the USA, the behavior of many Australian pilots is seriously lacking --- across a range of attributes.

My only comment about that is: "No sh1t, Sherlock".

Are you certain what you have said is correct?? Does the former necessarily result in the latter. Have a hard think, even a think outside the box of your learned behavior.

Arm,
You really are not too bright, are you, you read what you want to read, not what is written.
On the contrary, my operation is very different, I will not take part in "mutually arranged separation". Nor is that in any way sanctified by CAR 166. Notify my position and intentions, yes, but no "do-it-yourself" ATC.

It is worth going back to the PCH report of some years ago, one of the better expositions on the poor behavior of particularly "professional" pilots in Australia, versus what would be regarded as minimum risk behavior. Sadly, as a result of commercial pressure, and without any kosher safety case, CAR 166 was amended to "legalise" common practice of Regionals, that are contrary to ICAO Annex II, and normal practice in most of the rest of the world, in which I have flown.

Come to think of it, I wonder if Australia has filed a difference.

Tootle pip!!

It must be fun being in IMC in G when you're around Leadsled! I can imagine the scene:

"XX traffic, Leadsled, 15 miles west on descent to 5000, inbound, circuit 45 XX"

"Leadsled and XX traffic, ABC departed XX 40 tracking 270 on climb to 7000, will maintain 4000 until past you, request you report passing 10 miles"

"Ah negative, I will not be part of any such illegal separation, you just stay out of my way and we'll all be happy, or I will anyway."

So how do you manage to avoid hitting other aircraft when you are both in the same area, going to the same place?

Are you still flying these days Leady or are you talking of experiences from some time ago?

Folks,
Because you have grown up with the the "system" here, you know of and can not even contemplate the idea of another way of doing business, and fight tooth and nail to maintain "the system".

This is, by and large, what has made airspace management reform in Australia almost impossible ( except for piling on greater and greater costs) or, a a former CASA DAS put it, the "Galapagos Effect".

As for responding to "what would I do" theoretical scenarios, forget it, it's a waste of time, no two occasions are the same.

Squark 7700,
Sadly, I haven't noticed what I would call "improvements" in recent times, about the only change is the marked reduction in activity. Am I still flying, yes.

Tootle pip!!

Just not going to give a straight answer, are you Leadsled?

'Every scenario is different...' , yes, we all know that, but you either participate in the current way of separating IFR to IFR in G airspace, or you have some magical other way of doing it, or you're not doing it at all, which I suspect is the case.
Just lay off the calling people ignorant etc, it just drags what could be a useful discussion down into something less so.

Hmmm... perhaps getting back to the thread reason, i.e. VFR into IMC training.

Will the training be suitable for the aircraft the trainee will ultimatly be flying. Ex FSO GRIFFO had a look-see:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...am-gauges.html

Re, the basic trained VFR pilot being expected to use the radio to attempt to work out where he is just after going IMC may just be the final straw. Jabawocky commented as much in this thread: http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...oute-ycab.html




.

Glass panels Vs Steam Guages.......both have an AH, both will have a turn and bank indicator, etc, admittedly presented differently, but there all the same.

Regarding the basic trained VFR pilot using his radio just after entering IMC.....perhaps he should work on getting control of the situation, and once there, start expanding his workload.

Arm,
I missed this pearler before.

How do radios help scud running. I haven't ever come across any advice on radio phraseology in the AIP, to be used running scuds, and there is phraseology for darned near everything else, about ten (10) times the ICAO recommended phraseology.

Does CASA somewhere recommend scud running only by radio equipped aircraft, or perhaps discourage scud running by non-radio aircraft??

I am absolutely fascinated by this possible development by CASA.

Perhaps CASA Standards are developing criteria for scud running ?? --- they have generally covered the field, how did they miss regulating scud running.

Should be good for 30-40 more pages in Part 91, including MoS competencies for scud running, and advisory material to help you decipher the "plain language" regulation and MoS, and explanatory material to help you interpret the advisory material, plus CASA policy pamphlets to tell you what somebody in CASA thinks the Regulations, MoS, AC and explanatory material actually mean.

This may even be important with ADS-B mandate financially excluding many current IFR aircraft in the future, who will presumably operate VFR.

Has consideration been given to global warming increasing scud running, will the rising sea level and the lowering scud level meet. Of course, if CASA stick to Government regulatory policy, they will have to do a cost/benefit study to mandate carriage of radio by scud runners. If we get the that stage, there will undoubtedly be a FIR for scud running.

What you really mean is that I won't give answers that satisfy your particular mindset.

Unfortunately, the "Galapagos Effect", and a refusal to understand that aviation works a lot more smoothly and, dare I say, (based on the publicly available statistics) with a lower risk, in but not limited to, USA in particular.

Tootle pip!!

Just cut the waffle, mate. Do you or don't you fly IFR in IMC in Class G, and if so, how do you arrange to stay clear of other IFR aircraft? Telepathy?

My personal experience of going glass after many years behind a traditional six pack were problematic. And it seems others find the same issues.

When I started flying, spam cans all had much the same six pack. The 152 with a night VFR panel were basicly the same as the 210 or Mooney etc, the private pilot later went to. Those initial IF hours with the instructor making sure yer got the scan process ingrained in the mind were an easy non thinking fallback position when the pressure were on during later solo flight 'adventures'. If there is less pressure to need to think about the scan then the mind is free to think of things like nav and radio.

Walk around the light aircraft parking bay today and you'd likely find as many different panel layouts as there are aircraft. There are also multiple different airframe layouts that can affect the VFR to IMC equation.

Personally, I doubt the benefit of more then an hour or so of actual inflight instructor IF training unless it is in an aircraft that has the same panel layout and airframe as the one the pilot later flys. The onus needs to be on the pilot to self train on the equipment they fly for that one bad day when those rarely thought about basic IF skills are required.




.

Fair point about different panels / layouts, but the basic concept of getting onto whatever attitude instrument you have (be it a TV screen or a steam driven AH), sorting out an appropriate attitude/power combo and then turning onto some safe heading and/or climbing as appropriate, will go a long way in whatever you're flying.

Those tragic automation-dependent airliner accidents where they ride it in without going back to those basics should never happen, and a few hours of having the fundamentals ingrained will never hurt in my book (combined with encouragement of the right mindset and regular practice).