Lowering cloud base rising terrain
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I can add my two-penn'orth.
It is IMHO a GOOD THING for the required amount of training in order to achieve a rating or indeed a licence to be kept to the minimum. The level of training should be that which is necessary to demonstrate that you are safe enough to be let loose on your own, not necessarily a level that demonstrates a high degree of competency.
If you are safe enough to be let loose on your own you will have a keen sense of when it is not sensible to do something, even though it may well be entirely legal and within the privileges of your license and ratings.
Unfortunately we seem to have rather too many people concentrating on what is legal rather than what is sensible.
It is IMHO a GOOD THING for the required amount of training in order to achieve a rating or indeed a licence to be kept to the minimum. The level of training should be that which is necessary to demonstrate that you are safe enough to be let loose on your own, not necessarily a level that demonstrates a high degree of competency.
If you are safe enough to be let loose on your own you will have a keen sense of when it is not sensible to do something, even though it may well be entirely legal and within the privileges of your license and ratings.
Unfortunately we seem to have rather too many people concentrating on what is legal rather than what is sensible.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing wrong with VFR flying at all, its great fun for bimbling. And for the VFR only pilot the views expressed here are fine.
The reason several of us were anti the views expressed by DFC is that if you happen to have a skill, and can use it, then use it.
Making a precautionary landing if you don't need to in my opinion is far more of a risk, and opens a whole new can of worms. You may cock it up and break your plane, you may injure people, you may damage property, you may p*ss people off (i.e. the land owner).......You may make a fine landing, wait until good weather and then kill yourself on take off.
If you DON'T have to land, then don't. If you DO then DO, and don't worry about the consequences. A current IRd pilot SHOULDN'T have to land in a situation like this. If they do then I suppose their instrument training is questionable, at best.
The reason several of us were anti the views expressed by DFC is that if you happen to have a skill, and can use it, then use it.
Making a precautionary landing if you don't need to in my opinion is far more of a risk, and opens a whole new can of worms. You may cock it up and break your plane, you may injure people, you may damage property, you may p*ss people off (i.e. the land owner).......You may make a fine landing, wait until good weather and then kill yourself on take off.
If you DON'T have to land, then don't. If you DO then DO, and don't worry about the consequences. A current IRd pilot SHOULDN'T have to land in a situation like this. If they do then I suppose their instrument training is questionable, at best.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Perhaps there should be a section for us 'Sunday, fair weather flyers"
Definitely not!
I suspect most of us prefer being fair weather flyers.
I think we are just getting hot under the collar because DFC is suggesting the alternative we have put forward for an instrument rated pilot is in fact not a safe alternative. In fact he may even being saying it is highly irresponsible and illegal
IMHO he is simply wrong!
Long may we all be fair weather pilots.
Definitely not!
I suspect most of us prefer being fair weather flyers.
I think we are just getting hot under the collar because DFC is suggesting the alternative we have put forward for an instrument rated pilot is in fact not a safe alternative. In fact he may even being saying it is highly irresponsible and illegal
IMHO he is simply wrong!
Long may we all be fair weather pilots.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
even if it will make your flight illegal?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see how being a PPL has anything to do with it?
You are quite correct and I might add that there is a large number of PPLs out there that I would have far more faith in should they be in a difficult situation than some CPL or even "ATPL" holders that I have come across.
Perhaps I should have said Private Operators......because Commercial Operators would be bound by their Ops manual and thus (hopefully) would have clearly defined limits.
"even if it will make your flight illegal?"
Now that really does take the biscuit. I dont mind people being rude or simply not knowing what they are talking about - all part of the fun on these forums but I do worry about the suggestion of doing something illegal. Please enlighten all of us?
The ANO requires a pilot not to depart unless the flight can be completed as planned......if you plan a VFR flight then you can not legally depart unless you are (as much as possible) sure that the flight can be completed VFR.
To do otherwise would be akin to departing in a twin where you had good reason to suspect that one engine would fail during the flight but departed anyway and when the engine failed 10 minutes after departure took that beast to an airfield and hailed how good a pilot you were at flying a twin on one engine!
One suspects the reason why an increase in the instrument time for a PPL was introduced in the syllabus was because the CAA felt a pilot would be better able to cope with certain conditions. A different skill - yes, a more skilled pilot -definitely yes, therefore a more skilled pilot, ???????
No the instrument requirement to be able to complete a 180 degree turn in IMC is simply to try and reduce the casualty rate. Even the Cessna manuals had instructions on how to do a 180 and get back to safety! They are no different a PPL than a PPL trained in an ICAO region where the instrument requirement is less.........unless you think that they think that they can better fly in cloud should the situation occur.....where everyone would say that actually they are worse cause they are overconfident and too willing to operate in conditions that could cause unexpected risks and dangers.
I am a great believer in actually reading the research that was done. Unless I have missed something the researchers did NOT take a bunch of SEP CURRENT IR pilots
Ok most of them were ME/IR pilots but all were what they in an aftermath questionaire regarded as "current" i.e. they were legal and stated that they would depart tomorrow on an IFR flight in IMC from start to end. However, the important element is that they were given a simple VFR flight to complete and unexpectedly had to go IFR. We did the thing as a bit of fun and a "let's see what happens" but the results were dreadfull.
Perhaps IO540 was one of the people who crashed and burned and that is why he makes personal attacks when things come a little close to home?
As I said previously I have learned a great deal from this forum. As a new pilot it gave me much encouragement to do things like take on an enjoy instrument flying. Yep, I would be the first to accept the risks of instrument flying are greater than flying in good VMC but then so is flying a greater risk than driving your car. Flying is risk management at its best...................However because of what I have gained from this forum I cannot accept postings that give such an unbalanced point of view
Since this forum is about 20 years old out of 100 years of flight that we have to learn from and I have been "zooming round" for more than half of aviation's history and have yet to kill myself, we have obviously vastly different experiences and I would be at pains to point out that everyone has free choice to do what they want to do and say what they want to say. However there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are very few old bold pilots.
Again I say that if one of the most respected operators in Class G airspace with all their skill and resources (the RAF) treat going from visual contact to IFR unplanned as such a fuss then should the little operators not take a little guidance from the professionals who share their airspace and weather?
As for a "balanced argument"......an opinion you disagree with only unbalances the argument when you can not counter such an argument.
-------
Perhaps the answer is to make an IR mandatory for a UK PPL??
Nice idea but the political situation prevents it. Look at the political reasons why we have an IMC rating. How else can the CAA give some form of instrument privileges to pilots while at the same time ensure that such pilots do not take up any of the valuable slots that are available in the ATC airway system.....................Imagine the situation if like say France, most of the airspace below FL115 was class E or even D and every IMC rated pilot called London Control for an IFR clearance from say Leeds to Bournemouth via the airways insted of the current situation wher such pilots fly outside the ATS system and make no dent on ATC perfoemance targets.
Outside the UK, nothing short of a full IR is any good for serious flying, unless one is where the weather is nice, or in say the USA where one can fly VFR up to 17999ft
One can simply cross the UK FIR boundary and fly VFR within controlled airspace up to FL199. No big deal there so why corss the Atlantic? More importantly, the UK is the only country in the world to have such a rating......now if it is such a good idea then how come in 20+years not a single country has agreed with the UK - even those who share it's climate? The UK may have the singular view that an IMC rating is good but does that make it wrong when the rest of the world says no?
So we have for example the CAA "safety" leaflet #25 which contains mostly complete bull.
Have you told the CAA what you think of it's safety initiative? If not then you should.
There is a thred on here about a pilot who may have infringed Southampton airspace because they did not understand the problems with tracking a VOR and not using visual cross-reference on a VFR flight...........imagine that pilot going IMC.....if they can't navigate VFR then how the heck are they going to save themselves IFR. Imagine the situation if they can't get an ATC service!
Perhaps IO540 is an extremely good aviator. I would not class myself in that category. I would prefer to say that I was a survivor, have learned from experience and that regardless of how many decades I have been round, I will still (hopefully) learn some more before I obtain feathers.
--------
Nothing here will make your flight illegal
Hows about;
Not ensuring that the flight can be completed as planned;
Not having appropriate charts for the intended flight; and when it's al over
Failing to report a circumstance when the regulations were breached for the purpose of saving life.
I don't know how much flying people on here have done or where they are based but if one flyies south of say Birmingham and East of Bristol from what I have seen, one is never more than 5nm from an airfield where most GA types can land. Add to that the number of Grass foelds that are often better than some of the smaller strips then there is no reason why a precautionary landing can not be made safely.
Forget the arguments about damaging the aircraft flying it out. If there is any doubt about getting it out safely then take it home on a trailer..............oh but the expense - I can hear the cries.......money before safety?
Regards,
DFC
I think that I should put an explanation here to a comment I made in my last post that is very relevant;
Not ensuring that the flight can be completed as planned
The ANO Article 43;
The commander of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall reasonably
satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information
available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and
forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in
case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
I and most of the people I know interpret that as meaning if you are planning a VFR flight then the weather must be suitable for a VFR flight and one can not depart on such a flight unless that is the case. Yes one can plan for an IFR diversion should conditions not be as expected but overall, the flight only departs when the pilot reasonably expects to fly VFR to destination.
If the flight is IFR from start to finish then the same rule applies and the weather must be suitable. IR rated pilots will know how the ruless affect departure if the destination weather is below minima.
If the flight is planned as say VFR from departure to a certain point and then IFR and perhaps then VFR again closer to destination then the pre-flight planning must support this course of action and the decision to depart must be based on the pilot being in the belief that the flight can be completed as planned.
From the start I have said there is nothing worng with going planned IMC/IFR. It is the unexpected and/or unplanned IMC/IFR that can cause serious dangers regardless of qualifications or abilities.
Hope that clarifies my position!
Regards,
DFC
You are quite correct and I might add that there is a large number of PPLs out there that I would have far more faith in should they be in a difficult situation than some CPL or even "ATPL" holders that I have come across.
Perhaps I should have said Private Operators......because Commercial Operators would be bound by their Ops manual and thus (hopefully) would have clearly defined limits.
"even if it will make your flight illegal?"
Now that really does take the biscuit. I dont mind people being rude or simply not knowing what they are talking about - all part of the fun on these forums but I do worry about the suggestion of doing something illegal. Please enlighten all of us?
The ANO requires a pilot not to depart unless the flight can be completed as planned......if you plan a VFR flight then you can not legally depart unless you are (as much as possible) sure that the flight can be completed VFR.
To do otherwise would be akin to departing in a twin where you had good reason to suspect that one engine would fail during the flight but departed anyway and when the engine failed 10 minutes after departure took that beast to an airfield and hailed how good a pilot you were at flying a twin on one engine!
One suspects the reason why an increase in the instrument time for a PPL was introduced in the syllabus was because the CAA felt a pilot would be better able to cope with certain conditions. A different skill - yes, a more skilled pilot -definitely yes, therefore a more skilled pilot, ???????
No the instrument requirement to be able to complete a 180 degree turn in IMC is simply to try and reduce the casualty rate. Even the Cessna manuals had instructions on how to do a 180 and get back to safety! They are no different a PPL than a PPL trained in an ICAO region where the instrument requirement is less.........unless you think that they think that they can better fly in cloud should the situation occur.....where everyone would say that actually they are worse cause they are overconfident and too willing to operate in conditions that could cause unexpected risks and dangers.
I am a great believer in actually reading the research that was done. Unless I have missed something the researchers did NOT take a bunch of SEP CURRENT IR pilots
Ok most of them were ME/IR pilots but all were what they in an aftermath questionaire regarded as "current" i.e. they were legal and stated that they would depart tomorrow on an IFR flight in IMC from start to end. However, the important element is that they were given a simple VFR flight to complete and unexpectedly had to go IFR. We did the thing as a bit of fun and a "let's see what happens" but the results were dreadfull.
Perhaps IO540 was one of the people who crashed and burned and that is why he makes personal attacks when things come a little close to home?
As I said previously I have learned a great deal from this forum. As a new pilot it gave me much encouragement to do things like take on an enjoy instrument flying. Yep, I would be the first to accept the risks of instrument flying are greater than flying in good VMC but then so is flying a greater risk than driving your car. Flying is risk management at its best...................However because of what I have gained from this forum I cannot accept postings that give such an unbalanced point of view
Since this forum is about 20 years old out of 100 years of flight that we have to learn from and I have been "zooming round" for more than half of aviation's history and have yet to kill myself, we have obviously vastly different experiences and I would be at pains to point out that everyone has free choice to do what they want to do and say what they want to say. However there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are very few old bold pilots.
Again I say that if one of the most respected operators in Class G airspace with all their skill and resources (the RAF) treat going from visual contact to IFR unplanned as such a fuss then should the little operators not take a little guidance from the professionals who share their airspace and weather?
As for a "balanced argument"......an opinion you disagree with only unbalances the argument when you can not counter such an argument.
-------
Perhaps the answer is to make an IR mandatory for a UK PPL??
Nice idea but the political situation prevents it. Look at the political reasons why we have an IMC rating. How else can the CAA give some form of instrument privileges to pilots while at the same time ensure that such pilots do not take up any of the valuable slots that are available in the ATC airway system.....................Imagine the situation if like say France, most of the airspace below FL115 was class E or even D and every IMC rated pilot called London Control for an IFR clearance from say Leeds to Bournemouth via the airways insted of the current situation wher such pilots fly outside the ATS system and make no dent on ATC perfoemance targets.
Outside the UK, nothing short of a full IR is any good for serious flying, unless one is where the weather is nice, or in say the USA where one can fly VFR up to 17999ft
One can simply cross the UK FIR boundary and fly VFR within controlled airspace up to FL199. No big deal there so why corss the Atlantic? More importantly, the UK is the only country in the world to have such a rating......now if it is such a good idea then how come in 20+years not a single country has agreed with the UK - even those who share it's climate? The UK may have the singular view that an IMC rating is good but does that make it wrong when the rest of the world says no?
So we have for example the CAA "safety" leaflet #25 which contains mostly complete bull.
Have you told the CAA what you think of it's safety initiative? If not then you should.
There is a thred on here about a pilot who may have infringed Southampton airspace because they did not understand the problems with tracking a VOR and not using visual cross-reference on a VFR flight...........imagine that pilot going IMC.....if they can't navigate VFR then how the heck are they going to save themselves IFR. Imagine the situation if they can't get an ATC service!
Perhaps IO540 is an extremely good aviator. I would not class myself in that category. I would prefer to say that I was a survivor, have learned from experience and that regardless of how many decades I have been round, I will still (hopefully) learn some more before I obtain feathers.
--------
Nothing here will make your flight illegal
Hows about;
Not ensuring that the flight can be completed as planned;
Not having appropriate charts for the intended flight; and when it's al over
Failing to report a circumstance when the regulations were breached for the purpose of saving life.
I don't know how much flying people on here have done or where they are based but if one flyies south of say Birmingham and East of Bristol from what I have seen, one is never more than 5nm from an airfield where most GA types can land. Add to that the number of Grass foelds that are often better than some of the smaller strips then there is no reason why a precautionary landing can not be made safely.
Forget the arguments about damaging the aircraft flying it out. If there is any doubt about getting it out safely then take it home on a trailer..............oh but the expense - I can hear the cries.......money before safety?
Regards,
DFC
I think that I should put an explanation here to a comment I made in my last post that is very relevant;
Not ensuring that the flight can be completed as planned
The ANO Article 43;
The commander of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall reasonably
satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information
available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and
forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in
case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
I and most of the people I know interpret that as meaning if you are planning a VFR flight then the weather must be suitable for a VFR flight and one can not depart on such a flight unless that is the case. Yes one can plan for an IFR diversion should conditions not be as expected but overall, the flight only departs when the pilot reasonably expects to fly VFR to destination.
If the flight is IFR from start to finish then the same rule applies and the weather must be suitable. IR rated pilots will know how the ruless affect departure if the destination weather is below minima.
If the flight is planned as say VFR from departure to a certain point and then IFR and perhaps then VFR again closer to destination then the pre-flight planning must support this course of action and the decision to depart must be based on the pilot being in the belief that the flight can be completed as planned.
From the start I have said there is nothing worng with going planned IMC/IFR. It is the unexpected and/or unplanned IMC/IFR that can cause serious dangers regardless of qualifications or abilities.
Hope that clarifies my position!
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Foxmoth,
Yes, the ANO does provide this lifesaver, but if you have need to break the rules, the CAA must be informed at the earliest opportunity (or words to that effect). I don't imagine the CAA will very relaxed about it.
DFC,
The only reference for the requirement of uninterupted VFR is in relation to cancelling IFR flight plans in controlled airspace or license restrictions.
Can't remember the exact wording and don't have the book to hand but the law basically states you can break any of the rules if you need to in order to be safe.
DFC,
The ANO requires a pilot not to depart unless the flight can be completed as planned......if you plan a VFR flight then you can not legally depart unless you are (as much as possible) sure that the flight can be completed VFR.
Last edited by High Wing Drifter; 8th Jun 2005 at 07:32.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please note that I did add a rider that you need to have done proper planning which then turns sour. If you read my earlier post where I ended up in a farmers field this was exactly the situation I was in there, on this occasion I did not go IFR (was not qualified and current at the time), but if I had done so and then landed safely with ATC help I do not believe the CAA would have had a big problem with it afterwards - and I just because I did not point out that you need to report it does not mean I do not know that, just I believe if you are trying to ensure your safety contacting the CAA afterwards should be a very minor consideration at that time. It seems people here are getting caught up in the detail at times and forgetting the important part - Staying alive, and a lot of what is correct as some have pointed out is individual qualifications/experience and situation .
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
I am fascinated (and shocked by) the unexpected VMC into IMC trial that you were party to.
From your post it sounds like the trial was
1 - Take some current ME/IR (maybe some SE/IRs) as well and put them into a simulator with good visuals (sufficient to fly VFR)
2 - Drop them into full IMC with freezing conditions and fail (maybe gradually) the airspeed indicator
3 - watch what happens. (and most of them crash within a few minutes)
If I have outlined the correct scenario I am absolutely astonished that there is such a high level of loss of control from current ME/IR pilots. I would be interested to know more about it and if the issue was the inability of a "typical" IR pilot to shift mental gears into flying on the gauges with out warning or was it more about not being able to deal with flying with an ASI giving misleading information.
The reason I am interested is that when I did my original training a lot of time was spent on simulated system failures and how to recover -even when these were totally unexpectedly never induced a loss of control.
If the problem was more about shifting mental gears - what was it about the experiment that made it so difficult as compared to the routine practice of entering cloud on an IFR flight.
I am fascinated (and shocked by) the unexpected VMC into IMC trial that you were party to.
From your post it sounds like the trial was
1 - Take some current ME/IR (maybe some SE/IRs) as well and put them into a simulator with good visuals (sufficient to fly VFR)
2 - Drop them into full IMC with freezing conditions and fail (maybe gradually) the airspeed indicator
3 - watch what happens. (and most of them crash within a few minutes)
If I have outlined the correct scenario I am absolutely astonished that there is such a high level of loss of control from current ME/IR pilots. I would be interested to know more about it and if the issue was the inability of a "typical" IR pilot to shift mental gears into flying on the gauges with out warning or was it more about not being able to deal with flying with an ASI giving misleading information.
The reason I am interested is that when I did my original training a lot of time was spent on simulated system failures and how to recover -even when these were totally unexpectedly never induced a loss of control.
If the problem was more about shifting mental gears - what was it about the experiment that made it so difficult as compared to the routine practice of entering cloud on an IFR flight.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 8th Jun 2005 at 12:12.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC writes
they in an aftermath questionaire regarded as "current" i.e. they were legal and stated that they would depart tomorrow on an IFR flight in IMC from start to end
That doesn't mean they were current, and it doesn't mean they were current on the type which the test was running on.
Which country was this test done in, and how were the subject pilots selected?
Any pilot who isn't an aircraft owner (or part-owner) is VERY unlikely to have any instrument currency. In the UK, the most current instrument pilots (PPL/IR) are FAA, as are their planes, and there is no easy way to trace them and ask them if they would like to participate in a trial.
This result bears no resemblence to anything that a pilot who is current on the type would do. A climb into IMC would be second nature to an instrument pilot. A failed pitot system is obvious because the engine is running and the AI is showing the same thing as before. Not to mention the GS readout on the GPS; practically every IFR pilot uses a GPS.
I do it regularly; it is necessary on the majority of cross country flights regardless of the "plan" being VFR or IFR. The alternative is being stuck between terrain (high terrain en-route isn't unusual, even if the destination is flat) and clouds, messing about 500ft above the ground, not getting any radio service due to the low level (not to mention the ATCO wondering what the hell this idiot is doing, with his Mode C return somewhere way below the MSA), and being among a lot of other low-level traffic which is down there either because they like to be or because they have no option.
Re slagging off the IMC Rating:
It may be true that the IMC Rating enables the UK airways system to work, but equally it is true that the UK airspace system forces the IMC Rating (or something with similar privileges) to be available in the interests of safety. The predominance of Class A at very low levels, the large chunks of Class D which needs a clearance to enter (and which can be refused), mean that some other way had to be found.
In other countries they have different airspace and the IMC Rating isn't as necessary. In France you have lots of Class E and in general one can fly VFR up to FL104; this takes one VMC on top most of the time and the French issued ICAO PPL doesn't have the in sight of surface restriction which the CAA has put into its ICAO PPL. So, the need for a full IR in France isn't a huge deal. Similarly elsewhere. The USA has a very free airspace system in which a VFR pilot can very freely penetrate Class B-E and of course G, up to 17999ft.
In some places e.g. Greece there is so little GA that nobody has really had to think about how it is supposed to work if at all.
So the IMCR is a logical thing to have in the UK. To rip it up would mean ripping up the present airspace structure and rebuild it along the lines of e.g. the USA. There is a good argument for it but nobody has the balls to do it. Of course if they did rip up the IMCR they would need to provide an IR accessible to people that have to work for a living.......
they in an aftermath questionaire regarded as "current" i.e. they were legal and stated that they would depart tomorrow on an IFR flight in IMC from start to end
That doesn't mean they were current, and it doesn't mean they were current on the type which the test was running on.
Which country was this test done in, and how were the subject pilots selected?
Any pilot who isn't an aircraft owner (or part-owner) is VERY unlikely to have any instrument currency. In the UK, the most current instrument pilots (PPL/IR) are FAA, as are their planes, and there is no easy way to trace them and ask them if they would like to participate in a trial.
This result bears no resemblence to anything that a pilot who is current on the type would do. A climb into IMC would be second nature to an instrument pilot. A failed pitot system is obvious because the engine is running and the AI is showing the same thing as before. Not to mention the GS readout on the GPS; practically every IFR pilot uses a GPS.
I do it regularly; it is necessary on the majority of cross country flights regardless of the "plan" being VFR or IFR. The alternative is being stuck between terrain (high terrain en-route isn't unusual, even if the destination is flat) and clouds, messing about 500ft above the ground, not getting any radio service due to the low level (not to mention the ATCO wondering what the hell this idiot is doing, with his Mode C return somewhere way below the MSA), and being among a lot of other low-level traffic which is down there either because they like to be or because they have no option.
Re slagging off the IMC Rating:
It may be true that the IMC Rating enables the UK airways system to work, but equally it is true that the UK airspace system forces the IMC Rating (or something with similar privileges) to be available in the interests of safety. The predominance of Class A at very low levels, the large chunks of Class D which needs a clearance to enter (and which can be refused), mean that some other way had to be found.
In other countries they have different airspace and the IMC Rating isn't as necessary. In France you have lots of Class E and in general one can fly VFR up to FL104; this takes one VMC on top most of the time and the French issued ICAO PPL doesn't have the in sight of surface restriction which the CAA has put into its ICAO PPL. So, the need for a full IR in France isn't a huge deal. Similarly elsewhere. The USA has a very free airspace system in which a VFR pilot can very freely penetrate Class B-E and of course G, up to 17999ft.
In some places e.g. Greece there is so little GA that nobody has really had to think about how it is supposed to work if at all.
So the IMCR is a logical thing to have in the UK. To rip it up would mean ripping up the present airspace structure and rebuild it along the lines of e.g. the USA. There is a good argument for it but nobody has the balls to do it. Of course if they did rip up the IMCR they would need to provide an IR accessible to people that have to work for a living.......
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Wing Drifter,
The reference is the Perflight Action by the commander Article. (Can't remember the number). Basically one must ensure before departure that the flight can be completed as planned. The important thing is that this is required to be decided prior to flight.
That is why I say much more work may need to be done on the area of pre-flight weather understanding rather than having the idea that one can depart anyway and use the IMC option if the weather isn't VMC.
-------
mm_flynn,
Don't be so shocked. There have been airliners with two experienced pilots which crashed because of the pitot and/or static system failing.
Drop them into full IMC with freezing conditions
As a matter of interest, what do you regard as freezing conditions?
-----
IO540,
That doesn't mean they were current
You are spot on there.
However rather than asking them if they were current (which often gets the legal response) we asked if they would happily depart on a flight the next day which was IFR and used the willingness to fly IFR as a measure of what they considdered "current" to mean.
This result bears no resemblence to anything that a pilot who is current on the type would do
Please check out the airliner accident reports regarding blocked static and/or blocked pitot and/or failed primary attitude instruments........even the pros can get it wrong.
Any pilot who isn't an aircraft owner (or part-owner) is VERY unlikely to have any instrument currency
Agree totally and that is why the common mindset for the average pilot pounding round the FIR must be to fly what is planned and if one is really stuck, declare an emergency and take the least risk option - even if that means spending lots of money.
Regards,
DFC
The reference is the Perflight Action by the commander Article. (Can't remember the number). Basically one must ensure before departure that the flight can be completed as planned. The important thing is that this is required to be decided prior to flight.
That is why I say much more work may need to be done on the area of pre-flight weather understanding rather than having the idea that one can depart anyway and use the IMC option if the weather isn't VMC.
-------
mm_flynn,
Don't be so shocked. There have been airliners with two experienced pilots which crashed because of the pitot and/or static system failing.
Drop them into full IMC with freezing conditions
As a matter of interest, what do you regard as freezing conditions?
-----
IO540,
That doesn't mean they were current
You are spot on there.
However rather than asking them if they were current (which often gets the legal response) we asked if they would happily depart on a flight the next day which was IFR and used the willingness to fly IFR as a measure of what they considdered "current" to mean.
This result bears no resemblence to anything that a pilot who is current on the type would do
Please check out the airliner accident reports regarding blocked static and/or blocked pitot and/or failed primary attitude instruments........even the pros can get it wrong.
Any pilot who isn't an aircraft owner (or part-owner) is VERY unlikely to have any instrument currency
Agree totally and that is why the common mindset for the average pilot pounding round the FIR must be to fly what is planned and if one is really stuck, declare an emergency and take the least risk option - even if that means spending lots of money.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Although I am aware that sometimes airlines have gone down with surprisingly minor problems and that vacuum and pitot/static problems specifically can be a challenge to deal with in real life - I remain surprised that pulling that kind of emergency on a ME/IR caused a high percentage to loose control. I am assuming these are people who normally would cope well with a simulated instrument failure.
The freezing comment was simply to reflect earlier in the thread where you indicated it was the lack of pitot heat that was the cue to kill the ASI.
I think in support of some of the other comments - this trial indicates a lot more about the pilots ability to handle an instrument failure than the basic task of the transition from VMC to IMC.
Although I am aware that sometimes airlines have gone down with surprisingly minor problems and that vacuum and pitot/static problems specifically can be a challenge to deal with in real life - I remain surprised that pulling that kind of emergency on a ME/IR caused a high percentage to loose control. I am assuming these are people who normally would cope well with a simulated instrument failure.
The freezing comment was simply to reflect earlier in the thread where you indicated it was the lack of pitot heat that was the cue to kill the ASI.
I think in support of some of the other comments - this trial indicates a lot more about the pilots ability to handle an instrument failure than the basic task of the transition from VMC to IMC.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I get the impression you are opposed to flying IMC on grounds that it cannot be done safely. I am uncertain at what "level" of pilot or aircraft you would not be opposed.
If you are opposed to private pilots flying SEP or MEP aircraft IMC I accept the risks in the majority of cases are higher than flying VMC. I suppose the same is true for any aircraft and any pilot. Lose three generators on an Airbus and you want to be visual as soon as possible if not infact on the ground.
The discussion was about what you would do if you encountered a deteriorating base, ultimately preventing you continuing VMC. Someone said if you were IR you would climb IMC to the MSA. Others said for a current IR pilot the risk of doing this was less than any of the alternatives. You countered by suggesting to do so was illegal and very risky.
Now lets examine the “facts” on which you rely.
The matter of how the flight started and what planning may or may not have been done was not in issue. I suggested in the scenario outlined by the original poster a current IR pilot would have considered the possibility of becoming IMC. Had he done so, interpreting the ANO in the way that you do, he was legal. Had he done so, and simply been caught out by the weather because the TAFs proved unreliable, again he would be legal. If however he had ignored the TAFs that suggested the flight could not have been conducted VMC, then again interpreting the ANO as you do the departure may have been illegal BUT the transition from VMC to IMC was not, because the pilot took the most reasonable action possible to ensure the continued safety of the flight given the circumstances. In other words in none of the circumstances was the transition in itself from VMC to IMC illegal. I would add that I am sure we would all hope none of us would set off ignoring TAFs that required an IFR flight “plan”, and I think we have all made the assumption the weather deteriorated unexpectedly on our luckless pilot.
In terms of what the authorities would legally expect I wonder how well a current IR pilot would fair justifying flying into a mast at 500 feet or misjudged a landing injuring a third party compared with climbing IMC to the MSA?
You rely on “current” ME/IR pilots inadvertently entering IMC. Which study are you in fact referring to? I know of one, but it doesn’t seem to me the same study you have in mind. Lets be clear. Freezing conditions are very dangerous if you are not prepared for them. They are dangerous even if you are prepared, if the aircraft is not suitably equipped. As I said I would hope our hapless pilot with his IR would have some idea of the height of the freezing level, assuming for one moment the flight was in the colder months - we are not told. In the study the pilots encountered an “unexpected” failure in conditions they had not been told existed. The aircraft was also equipped to a bare minimum - in fact below the minimum most of us would have these days. The facts are instrument failures are pretty rare fortunately. Yes they occur, and yes they are always difficult to handle. On balance however what is the probability of your suffering an instrument failure on the one occasion you get “caught out” by bad weather and decide to climb rather than scud run. I suspect the probability is way less than scud running into a mast!
You then move on to the PPL syllabus and tell us the instrument training was introduced to enable a 180 degree backtrack. I had previously made the point that this training made a pilot a better pilot. I think you have talked yourself into supporting that position. Our hapless pilot because of his limited instrument training is able to safely conduct this procedure - he is therefore a better pilot because of that training compared with a pilot without. He would be an even better pilot if that training had gone further in the circumstances outlined.
I tell you what put 30 PPLs in the sim in the circumstances described. 10 have no instrument training at all, 10 have the current PPL instrument training and 10 are IR. The base has come down to 500 feet, and scatter a few 800 feet masts around with support wires and some rising terrain to say 800 feet. The PPLs have never seen anything like this before, the terrain is pretty inhospitable, some attempt a landing between the boulders, some “plod”on, most panic, the PPLs with a bit of instrument training back track, some get the 180 wrong, some hit masts, most make a reasonable job of it, the IR pilots immediately climb. Tell me, you have got a fiver to bet, which group is your money on?
Finally you talk about old and bold pilots and “zooming around” for half of aviation’s history. That seems to me sensationalism. It seems to say, and I assume you have an IR, that in the circumstances originally outlined you would personally have done something other than climb IMC. Is that what you are saying? If it is, what would you have done. To add a bit of spice, you are in Wales and not to keen on the landing terrain and the weather has generally closed in around you.
So to sum up, finding yourself “unexpectedly” IMC with an IR is an issue, but I still find no evidence in what you say that the transition from VMC to IMC is illegal nor do I find any evidence to suggest for a CURRENT IR pilot it presents a greater risk than scud running. Whether our hapless pilot may then have problems landing at destination or alternate or whether he may be really unlucky and suffer an instrument failure or find himself in freezing conditions are issues, but lets pull ourselves back to the real world for a moment, if his destination and / or alternate required an instrument approach and / or he suffered an instrument failure it would be a really really bad day - maybe as bad as had he scud run!
DFC you seem in short to be determined to throw everything at our hapless IR pilot - freezing conditions at relatively low level of which he was not aware, ASI or some other instrument failure, worries about acting illegally a lack of true currency and doubtless a few other woes. On the other hand you seem to ignore our low level VMCer having any instrument problems, running into any masts or other tall objects whilst he is scud running or finding a suitable place to land whilst at only 5oo feet. For this reason it leaves me worried as I opened that you are opposed to IMC per say and will unbalance the argument to support your bias.
It leaves me even more worried that our hapless pilot will have read this thread, ignore all his instrument training and scud run because he remembers this thread and worries he might have an instrument failure climbing or might be prosecuted by the CAA, so while he is worrying he hits rising terrain or a mast or a boulder and a commentator of the AAIB report speculates why our pilot ignored all his training and ended up another statistic.
There we all go but for the grace of God.
I get the impression you are opposed to flying IMC on grounds that it cannot be done safely. I am uncertain at what "level" of pilot or aircraft you would not be opposed.
If you are opposed to private pilots flying SEP or MEP aircraft IMC I accept the risks in the majority of cases are higher than flying VMC. I suppose the same is true for any aircraft and any pilot. Lose three generators on an Airbus and you want to be visual as soon as possible if not infact on the ground.
The discussion was about what you would do if you encountered a deteriorating base, ultimately preventing you continuing VMC. Someone said if you were IR you would climb IMC to the MSA. Others said for a current IR pilot the risk of doing this was less than any of the alternatives. You countered by suggesting to do so was illegal and very risky.
Now lets examine the “facts” on which you rely.
The matter of how the flight started and what planning may or may not have been done was not in issue. I suggested in the scenario outlined by the original poster a current IR pilot would have considered the possibility of becoming IMC. Had he done so, interpreting the ANO in the way that you do, he was legal. Had he done so, and simply been caught out by the weather because the TAFs proved unreliable, again he would be legal. If however he had ignored the TAFs that suggested the flight could not have been conducted VMC, then again interpreting the ANO as you do the departure may have been illegal BUT the transition from VMC to IMC was not, because the pilot took the most reasonable action possible to ensure the continued safety of the flight given the circumstances. In other words in none of the circumstances was the transition in itself from VMC to IMC illegal. I would add that I am sure we would all hope none of us would set off ignoring TAFs that required an IFR flight “plan”, and I think we have all made the assumption the weather deteriorated unexpectedly on our luckless pilot.
In terms of what the authorities would legally expect I wonder how well a current IR pilot would fair justifying flying into a mast at 500 feet or misjudged a landing injuring a third party compared with climbing IMC to the MSA?
You rely on “current” ME/IR pilots inadvertently entering IMC. Which study are you in fact referring to? I know of one, but it doesn’t seem to me the same study you have in mind. Lets be clear. Freezing conditions are very dangerous if you are not prepared for them. They are dangerous even if you are prepared, if the aircraft is not suitably equipped. As I said I would hope our hapless pilot with his IR would have some idea of the height of the freezing level, assuming for one moment the flight was in the colder months - we are not told. In the study the pilots encountered an “unexpected” failure in conditions they had not been told existed. The aircraft was also equipped to a bare minimum - in fact below the minimum most of us would have these days. The facts are instrument failures are pretty rare fortunately. Yes they occur, and yes they are always difficult to handle. On balance however what is the probability of your suffering an instrument failure on the one occasion you get “caught out” by bad weather and decide to climb rather than scud run. I suspect the probability is way less than scud running into a mast!
You then move on to the PPL syllabus and tell us the instrument training was introduced to enable a 180 degree backtrack. I had previously made the point that this training made a pilot a better pilot. I think you have talked yourself into supporting that position. Our hapless pilot because of his limited instrument training is able to safely conduct this procedure - he is therefore a better pilot because of that training compared with a pilot without. He would be an even better pilot if that training had gone further in the circumstances outlined.
I tell you what put 30 PPLs in the sim in the circumstances described. 10 have no instrument training at all, 10 have the current PPL instrument training and 10 are IR. The base has come down to 500 feet, and scatter a few 800 feet masts around with support wires and some rising terrain to say 800 feet. The PPLs have never seen anything like this before, the terrain is pretty inhospitable, some attempt a landing between the boulders, some “plod”on, most panic, the PPLs with a bit of instrument training back track, some get the 180 wrong, some hit masts, most make a reasonable job of it, the IR pilots immediately climb. Tell me, you have got a fiver to bet, which group is your money on?
Finally you talk about old and bold pilots and “zooming around” for half of aviation’s history. That seems to me sensationalism. It seems to say, and I assume you have an IR, that in the circumstances originally outlined you would personally have done something other than climb IMC. Is that what you are saying? If it is, what would you have done. To add a bit of spice, you are in Wales and not to keen on the landing terrain and the weather has generally closed in around you.
So to sum up, finding yourself “unexpectedly” IMC with an IR is an issue, but I still find no evidence in what you say that the transition from VMC to IMC is illegal nor do I find any evidence to suggest for a CURRENT IR pilot it presents a greater risk than scud running. Whether our hapless pilot may then have problems landing at destination or alternate or whether he may be really unlucky and suffer an instrument failure or find himself in freezing conditions are issues, but lets pull ourselves back to the real world for a moment, if his destination and / or alternate required an instrument approach and / or he suffered an instrument failure it would be a really really bad day - maybe as bad as had he scud run!
DFC you seem in short to be determined to throw everything at our hapless IR pilot - freezing conditions at relatively low level of which he was not aware, ASI or some other instrument failure, worries about acting illegally a lack of true currency and doubtless a few other woes. On the other hand you seem to ignore our low level VMCer having any instrument problems, running into any masts or other tall objects whilst he is scud running or finding a suitable place to land whilst at only 5oo feet. For this reason it leaves me worried as I opened that you are opposed to IMC per say and will unbalance the argument to support your bias.
It leaves me even more worried that our hapless pilot will have read this thread, ignore all his instrument training and scud run because he remembers this thread and worries he might have an instrument failure climbing or might be prosecuted by the CAA, so while he is worrying he hits rising terrain or a mast or a boulder and a commentator of the AAIB report speculates why our pilot ignored all his training and ended up another statistic.
There we all go but for the grace of God.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 8th Jun 2005 at 22:10.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope DFC doesn't work for the CAA, otherwise we are all doomed.....
As regards that Boeing that came down after ground maint. taped over the static vents, what happened there beggars belief and IMHO can be explained only by a near total lack of systems knowledge (below PPL level) on the part of the 3rd world crew. What does that tell us? I suppose it tells us that you can fly an airliner, on a regular airliner route, while knowing bugger all about the basics. Irrelevant in this context.
As regards that Boeing that came down after ground maint. taped over the static vents, what happened there beggars belief and IMHO can be explained only by a near total lack of systems knowledge (below PPL level) on the part of the 3rd world crew. What does that tell us? I suppose it tells us that you can fly an airliner, on a regular airliner route, while knowing bugger all about the basics. Irrelevant in this context.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS I forgot to deal with the references to the CAA leaflets that were mentioned.
4.7 deals with diversion. To paraphrase if you dont have an IMC OR IR rating and the base falls below 1,000 feet turn back IMMEDIATELY. NOTE - so if you do (have an IMC OR IR rating) presumably you might consider something else. I wonder what?
- perhaps DFC isnt with the CAA after all??
4.7 deals with diversion. To paraphrase if you dont have an IMC OR IR rating and the base falls below 1,000 feet turn back IMMEDIATELY. NOTE - so if you do (have an IMC OR IR rating) presumably you might consider something else. I wonder what?
- perhaps DFC isnt with the CAA after all??
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where does it say that if the base falls below 1000ft one must turn back?
The ANO is the only law, everything else is advisory. It wouldn't suprise me to find some CAA flyer suggesting the above, but it doesn't make sense.
The ANO is the only law, everything else is advisory. It wouldn't suprise me to find some CAA flyer suggesting the above, but it doesn't make sense.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety sense SSL01 - good airmanship. Of course it is not law.
"UNLESS you have an IMC or instrument rating a suitably equipted aircraft and are in current practice and expereinced you must remain in sight of the surface. Before encountering lowering cloudbase or visibility make plans to retreat or divert. If conditions get worse eg 1,000 foot cloudbase or visibility less than 3 K carry out these plans immediately".
It is almost a quote but I couldnt cut and paste from the pdf.
Note the wording that would suggest to me you do certain things if you are not instrument rated but there may be other possibilities if you are subject to the caveats.
The whole section is under the title "diversions".
Whilst we are talking about the CAA it occurs that they could have said "even if you have an IMC or IR if you encounter these conditions and had set out VMC you should carry out these plans immediately (viz turn back) and not risk entering the clouds. (sic because it would be illegal and dangerous to do so).
"UNLESS you have an IMC or instrument rating a suitably equipted aircraft and are in current practice and expereinced you must remain in sight of the surface. Before encountering lowering cloudbase or visibility make plans to retreat or divert. If conditions get worse eg 1,000 foot cloudbase or visibility less than 3 K carry out these plans immediately".
It is almost a quote but I couldnt cut and paste from the pdf.
Note the wording that would suggest to me you do certain things if you are not instrument rated but there may be other possibilities if you are subject to the caveats.
The whole section is under the title "diversions".
Whilst we are talking about the CAA it occurs that they could have said "even if you have an IMC or IR if you encounter these conditions and had set out VMC you should carry out these plans immediately (viz turn back) and not risk entering the clouds. (sic because it would be illegal and dangerous to do so).
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I can't see what is so controversial about DFC's point of view.
I fly IFR every working day but still appreciate the danger of the transition from VMC to IMC in a single-engined piston. It still requires a high work load, even if you have made the conscious decision that you are prepared to do so at the planning stage, coupled with an element of emotional stress be it disapointment, fear or failure.
Strangely enough my last 2 proficiency checks have both involved some flying down to 500'agl (due wx) but my partner in crime and I were both in agreement as to our course of action and we could have gone IFR immediatley if we chose. Indeed, it would have been easier to climb and file IFR but we chose the harder route for practice purposes. The last occasion also showed vividly the effect of drizzle on a not sufficiently clean windshield. The view from the side windows was considerably better.
If I were to find myself in such a situation I would be unlikely to be in a type which was sufficiently equiped to even consider the IMC option.
If I found myself in facing weather which would prevent further progress I would turn back. If you do land, you don't know how long you're going to be sitting in the field hence the earlier poster suggesting a good field with pub at hand.
If, however, I'd been trapped and the way back was suddenly blocked I'd find a field, a blardy good field. Just to throw some contentious material in here, I'd add that any field which is not big enough to take-off from is not big enough to be safely landed in considering that the engine is still functioning normally and I would expect an operator to seek full reimbursement from any pilot who did so.
Weather rarely gets that bad that quickly so there is little excuse for not having time to find a suitable place to land. And if you can use some time to find a suitable field why not find time finding the nearest reachable airfield or gliding site? Many dis-used fields are sitll suitable landing areas.
If you're worried about the surface then I'd like to mention a bush technique. Bounce your wheels down on the ground and make a go-around. Circle and come back to inspect the marks which you may have made. If they are full of water find somewhere higher or another surface to land.
I fly IFR every working day but still appreciate the danger of the transition from VMC to IMC in a single-engined piston. It still requires a high work load, even if you have made the conscious decision that you are prepared to do so at the planning stage, coupled with an element of emotional stress be it disapointment, fear or failure.
Strangely enough my last 2 proficiency checks have both involved some flying down to 500'agl (due wx) but my partner in crime and I were both in agreement as to our course of action and we could have gone IFR immediatley if we chose. Indeed, it would have been easier to climb and file IFR but we chose the harder route for practice purposes. The last occasion also showed vividly the effect of drizzle on a not sufficiently clean windshield. The view from the side windows was considerably better.
If I were to find myself in such a situation I would be unlikely to be in a type which was sufficiently equiped to even consider the IMC option.
If I found myself in facing weather which would prevent further progress I would turn back. If you do land, you don't know how long you're going to be sitting in the field hence the earlier poster suggesting a good field with pub at hand.
If, however, I'd been trapped and the way back was suddenly blocked I'd find a field, a blardy good field. Just to throw some contentious material in here, I'd add that any field which is not big enough to take-off from is not big enough to be safely landed in considering that the engine is still functioning normally and I would expect an operator to seek full reimbursement from any pilot who did so.
Weather rarely gets that bad that quickly so there is little excuse for not having time to find a suitable place to land. And if you can use some time to find a suitable field why not find time finding the nearest reachable airfield or gliding site? Many dis-used fields are sitll suitable landing areas.
If you're worried about the surface then I'd like to mention a bush technique. Bounce your wheels down on the ground and make a go-around. Circle and come back to inspect the marks which you may have made. If they are full of water find somewhere higher or another surface to land.
Last edited by Miserlou; 9th Jun 2005 at 16:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
miserlou
Weather rarely gets that bad that quickly
I was playing golf on one occasion and could see the fog coming towards me and could see nothing withn about 2 mins from when I first saw the steam rising from the ocean. I could hear a little plane circling above and for once I was happy to be on the ground.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairly local phenomena though wouldn't you say?
I have also seen a similar situation which I was actually waiting to occur. A weatherman had told us about the weather situation and warned us that the wind WILL change direction during the afternoon and when it does WILL move this air from the sea to the land and the fog WILL form quickly as it does so.
Although the actual change was fairly quick, it was forecast and we were waiting to see it happen.
One could hardly say that was a situation for which we were unprepared.
I have also seen a similar situation which I was actually waiting to occur. A weatherman had told us about the weather situation and warned us that the wind WILL change direction during the afternoon and when it does WILL move this air from the sea to the land and the fog WILL form quickly as it does so.
Although the actual change was fairly quick, it was forecast and we were waiting to see it happen.
One could hardly say that was a situation for which we were unprepared.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith - good point on the haar - I recently spent 3 years in eastern Scotland and the Forth / Tay estuaries could get engulfed in a haar for days at a time and these had a tendency to form with little notice. The haar looks like quite a light layer when you're underneath it, but when you go up through a hole and get on top, it is a pretty uniform stratus which is usually no more than 500 - 1000 ft thick, but conceals the ground very effectively!