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?

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! :confused:

Mine did! :ok:

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.

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.

Sunfish, you have clearly not been provided with the required training under the PPL syllabus and now you've got me wondering where you have been conducting your AFR's as this is all usually covered as part of the AFR and I specifically recall it being in the syllabus.

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.

Sounds like you did do the training, but "cheated" by seeking external visual clues such as a peak which will quickly "reset" any leaning feeling that you may have been experiencing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If I recall correctly, that was part of my flight test, stalling in approach config, descending turn. That stall will fulfil 3 of the requirements in the Part 61 flight test report:

My instructor did take me into cloud, scared the bejesus out of me even after lots of work under foggles - not remotely the same! We did a 180 - but all my training deserted me and I threw it into a fairly steep turn before I remembered rate 1 was the go.

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.

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! :E

Dr :8

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!!

Hear! Hear! :D

With 16 GPS things and logged in to PPRUNE at times if I recall. :}

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.

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.

A matter of personal opinion. You don't have to add I/F flying hours at all. Go to your preferred flying school and use their flight training device (simulator) preferably with an instrument rated instructor; not a new unrated instructor,thus avoiding the blind leading the blind. .

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.

IMC training
 

FWIW I used to expose all my students to real IMC nearing the completion of their training.

I think that is a very practical demonstration of what happens when the limits of a VFR PPL are pushed then exceeded. I think the real problem however is the decision making process and how to avoid getting oneself into the gloop. How that is taught and reinforced is open for discussion but it has taken over 20 years for Non-Technical Skills to be included in sim checks in the airlines. I remember going to the last CASA pilots workshop in 2006 where a VFR into IMC accident was discussed. It is still happening however so the message is not being heeded or something else is occurring. For my money it is the fact that the decision making process is flawed. I agree with this statement:

but the lid of the tool box is not being opened. Lets get the info out there as to what is in the tool box and how they are used. On another point I have noticed that the age group of a lot of the fatal accidents is in the middle to upper middle age range. Is that significant in regards to decision making? I don't know, maybe its just that there are not a lot of younger recreational pilots around anymore. Additional IFR training is expensive and you need to remain current. Learning about human factors and NTS in the cockpit can be learnt on the ground and practised every time you go flying.

My point is that we should be looking into defence mechanisms to help prevent VFR pilots getting into IMC. I would be somewhat very surprised if some VFR pilots are keeping their IF scan current using simulators based on an expectation that they may end going IMC. If this is the case, they need to seriously consider getting an instrument rating.

I have had two very good mates killed in two seperate CFIT accidents, and also had the displeasure of being involved in a number of onsite fatal accident investigations where the sights and smells were terrible. Hence I'm pretty passionate about doing everything to prevent these kind of tragedies given my personal experiences.

All these weasel words about `Defence Mechanisms` and `Tools`, are nothing but Mumbo Jumbo. There will always be prangs caused by VFR pilots whether experienced or not, finding themselves inadvertently flying into IMC and ending up killing everyone aboard.

For years and years, CASA and all the other names CASA were before CASA, have published hundreds of pages of very good advice to these people who in the end got killed in IMC when they thought they could just get through a bit of mist and low cloud to fine weather on the other side. All the fine words in the world will not prevent these sort of accidents. Some pilots are wise and see trouble coming as the clouds close in, and they quickly decide to turn back - or better still they don't depart if the forecast gives marginal VMC.

Others blast off and think it won't happen to me. Like hoon drivers they think it won't happen to me. Most car P Platers think exactly the same way. It is human nature. That is why IMHO, instrument flying to a competent standard should be as vital to PPL training as are practice forced landings. Someone mentioned accent on FTD in early training. Best idea ever if VFR into IMC accidents are to be minimised. Minimised, because you will never fully eradicate these sort of accidents.

Some of you guys need to visit an accident site where the sights and smells aren't pleasant and only then will your views change, well maybe.

I'm sure anyone who works for the ATSB or our emergency services who are tasked to pick up the pieces as a result of tragic events would all agree with me........

Justify your first opinion Sheppy, what you have stated isn't an answer, it's just an opinion based on history.

My assumption is that the busting through a bit of cloud takes no skill at all. You are not actually flying in IMC, rather the flight path vector takes the plane through the cloud before turbulence and pilot input have any real effect on its overall stability.

If however the pilot spends a minute busting through a patch and is bounced around a fair bit and decides to turn back to get out of the cloud, that is when they need good instrument skills (and not panic) or they will ultimately prove the 178 seconds theory.

I am pretty sure 178 seconds was an average time, some took a lot longer to lose it and some a lot less. Who cares. If you are not current and competent you may be just as dead in however many seconds.

I should have also mentioned those VFR pilots with auto-pilots whom set and forget and enjoy the ride. You'd be surprised how many of these are out there now as this kind of gear becomes more affordable to the average man, be they GA or RAA. It is my understanding that a recent fatality fell into this category of attempting to use auto-pilot to blast off into IMC when neither the pilot was trained or aircraft were legally equipped for IMC conditions.

Thats the exact sentiment that some airline pilots had 20 years ago as they read their newspapers when the concept of CRM was being introduced in mandatory classroom settings.

What is a competent standard? How long does this standard get maintained? Is it tested on a BFR? PPLs already have a lower standard IFR rating available to them. A pilot would still have to decide what is their cut-off point for how bad the weather is that they are prepared to fly in. Have you ever flown in icing, what if there are embedded CBs, what happens if the destination has weather worse than forecast. Having IFR skills doesn't make things easier it just changes the level of decision making.

So I don't agree that extra training at the PPL level will stop these type of accidents occurring. I do agree that they will continue to occur but the aim should be to reduce them to a level that is as low as reasonably possible. The current method of just highlighting the accidents that have occurred doesn't work on changing the stats. A new approach is needed and I still think that should include training on decision making and other NTS both during the PPL training and afterwards.

Lookleft: my point, and that of some others, is that VFR pilots should have enough real experience of flight into IMC to:

(1) correctly identify a looming IMC situation developing BEFORE entering IMC, and,

(2) having identified the hazard, take immediate avoiding action.

Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that having the alleged intellectual tools to rationalise the situation, coupled with rarely practiced foggle or simulator training and perhaps an autopilot, leads one to the false belief that you can cope with IMC when it happenS to you.

If you want real experience get an IFR rating. Its the only way you are going to deal with IMC when it happens to you. What are you proposing Sunfish, 6 hours, 10 hours? 5 years or 10 years down the track it is not going to help you. However constant refreshing of the NTS skills that can be taught and practised at all stages and on every flight may help you avoid the looming IMC in the first place. Each weather experience is different, there is no one size fits all. Even as an IFR pilot there have been some days when I have said no. What are my credentials? 18,000 hours and have had a Grade 1 instructor rating with Mutli-engine and IFR training approval. I am not saying I am FIGJAM but I do know Sunny that you like to trot out your credentials to give your statements credibility.

Or to put that another way. I know what I am talking about.:ok:

Please, Sir. Not the start of another pissing contest..

Why so?? I see no reason why anyone would give false figures in this forum, and certainly with those figures the opinion given would be of value.

For most of us, our opinions are founded in our experiences!

That being the case, many who have posted in here appear to have had vastly different aviation experiences from mine!:bored:

I learned to fly in the 70's when we did 3 hrs IF for the Restricted PPL and a further 2 hrs IF for the Unrestricted PPL.

As a 100+ hr PPL I flew myself into IMC! I thought I was descending into a cloud layer that was only a few hundred feet thick as that appeared to be the case as I passed the edge of it in VMC on top - it wasn't! Down I went expecting to break out any second - I didn't!

I wasn't just riding along as a pseudo pax with the AP doing the work - I was hand flying a C172 with no AP.

The urge to keep going down was great as I had to break out, right? At least I had the presence of mind to look at the WAC chart and decide that I would descend to 1000' above the highest point in the area and I made a decision that I would climb back out of it if I didn't break out by my calculated MDA.

That's what happened, I climbed back out to VMC on top, did a 180 and flew back to the edge of the cloud bank. I was right! It was only a few hundred feet thick - for a couple of miles and then it went right down to the trees!

All up I spent about 20 min in IMC.

Did I at any point think I might die - No!
Did I scare the **** out of myself - Yep!
Did the IF training I did for my PPL save my life - ABSOLUTELY!

Dr :8

Well done FTDK but I think you might be that small cohort of pilots who have gotten away with it. The crash comics from the 70's until now are full of PPLs who had the same training, did the same thing and did not survive. Like I said there is no one size fits all for the type of weather that people encounter.

That's a pretty pointless statement isn't it? I didn't make the Crash Comic - nor did most of the other pilots whose basic IF training for their PPL saved their hides.

I have read all of the crash comics from 1972 to about 5 yrs ago when I stopped reading the crap publication that replaced the original Crash Comic. My recollection is that while their are lots of stories about controlled flight into terrain by VFR pilots in IMC, I don't recall too many stories about VFR pilots losing control of the aeroplane in IMC.

I do recall one story about a VFR pilot who, having realised he had screwed up badly, held his C172 in a controlled descent in IMC until he flopped it onto the tree tops in the hills behind the Gold Coast. He and his pax walked away from the wreck.

Dr :8

So what you are saying is that most VFR pilots who encounter IMC actually get away with it and live to fly another day because of the 5 hours of IF training they received during their PPL training? Then you go on to say that the pilots who didn't survive actually were controlling their aircraft but just run out of altitude? Extraordinary deduction. Strange how the stupid ones always seem to be descending rather than attempting to climb their way out of trouble. You might like to share your wisdom with the NTSB and the FAA because they also have a continuing problem with VFR pilots flying into IMC and killing themselves and their passengers.:ugh:

No, I'm saying that most VFR pilot/aeroplane excursions into IMC where the pilot has received some appropriate basic IF training do not result in the aeroplane peeling off into a death spiral dive within 60 seconds! It may eventually happen because they fail to take timely appropriate decisions that will get them out of the crap - or they run into something.

Full panel basic IF is not hard - its mostly mind over matter. If you fly into cloud and think "Oh **** I'm gonna die", you probably will.

The reason the old crash comic was so good was you could read about the unfortunate mistakes that others had made and ask yourself, "What would I do" and develop a mental plan or plans for such a senario.

What are my bonafides? I survived 10 years of scud running in Australia and NZ before I got my IR! :E

Tell that to the 737 and Airbus pilots overseas that have crashed while attempting to recover from unusual attitudes in IMC all because they lacked the skills to fly full panel basic instrument flying in a sophisticated jet transport. The tragic result of automation dependency. Or the current accident that started this thread.

By sheer coincidence I just talked today with an acquaintance who is friends with a bloke who was fishing in the waters and saw that Cherokee hit the sea 150 metres away from him, nose down and 90 degrees angle of bank. He said it was foggy with very low visibility. Bits soon came to the surface of the sea followed by two deceased. Makes the highlighted quote look a bit sorry:ouch:

FTDK, touché!

As I said earlier, I suspect the number of a VFR pilots regularly in IMC far exceeds the number that are spudding in.

I am not making myself clear. I am not advocating training in flying IMC or IFR. I am advocating the same cautionary experience that currently pertains to spinning - a demonstration of exactly how dangerous flying into IMC is going to be for someone who is not Instrument rated and current.

Leadsled apparently already practices what i am proposing and has achieved the desired outcome - a healthy respect for IMC that cannot be intellectualised away and that no amount of "get there-itis" can overcome:

If I had to change Leadys post at all it would be to add the words "for them" in the sense that "this is what is going to happen to you, personally, if you fly into IMC.". I say this because in my opinion, under pressure to go to some place or get home, pilots press on when they should not, by intellectualising away the risks - "anyway, thanks to my foggles training I can always turn around in the cloud and get straight back out".

In my own very limited experience I was once returning to Melbourne from the North in deteriorating weather. The Kilmore Gap looked closed to me when I reached my decision point at Mangalore. I diverted to Bendigo after making sure that I could still head back to Swan Hill or Benalla if necessary and on the way was confronted with rain, decreasing visibility and a decreasing ceiling that was barely just 1000ft AGL as I made Bendigo and landed. I was just VFR at Bendigo. Not to put to fine a point on it, I was ****ting myself. AFter an hour or so on the ground the rain stopped, the ceiling lifted to about 1500 - 2000 and we made our way home via Ballarat and into the Melbourne basin via the You Yangs. If I had pushed on instead of landing, I would have been a statistic either near Kilmore or Ballarat.

I take your point Sunny and there is value in asking an instructor (with IFR qualifications) to take you up and expose you to actual IFR. I suspect that many would see it as a waste of money.

I couldn't help but notice in your story that it was your decisions and therefore your decision making processes that led you out of trouble. I have no idea how these skills were developed, you possibly have developed them through your other experiences in the work place and through sailing. They are not intuitive to all but they are the sort of skills that can be taught, trained and practised. Its not a case of intellectualising the situation but being taught and then developing the Non-Technical Skills that can help get you out of a situation like you found yourself in.

If the prevailing attitude is "I got away with it so others can" or "Everyone does it, its not that bad" or the classic "Its mind over matter" (like human physiology has nothing to do with IF) then its just a case of nothing to see here move along and just let Darwin take care of the rest.:ugh:

Let's meet behind the shelter shed after school. Thems fightin' words.