Lowering cloud base rising terrain
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: UK
IO,I think what I meant by average ppl someone who does the average number of hours a year for a ppl, regardless of ratings. In other words someone who is not flying enough to be able to maintain an ordered thought and action process when presented with an inadvertant IMC situation.
I still maintain that for the average private pilot and therefore(?) average reader of this forum, going IMC is the worst of the three options available (and I think that this is the point DFC is trying to get across). A forced landing is nearly as bad and is only second because it is rarely fatal (at least until the owner of the aeroplane/insurance company gets to you!!). An early turn should be considered the only option.
I still maintain that for the average private pilot and therefore(?) average reader of this forum, going IMC is the worst of the three options available (and I think that this is the point DFC is trying to get across). A forced landing is nearly as bad and is only second because it is rarely fatal (at least until the owner of the aeroplane/insurance company gets to you!!). An early turn should be considered the only option.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,557
Likes: 95
From: moon
I still have the feeling that certain people here are talking with a straight face about the correct way to play russian roulette. I have to agree with DFC.
I am a simple low time VFR pilot.
The available and voluminous documentation on VFR into IMC consistently says the same thing.
1. Young players are seduced into scud running with maybe a bit of "get there-itis" as well.
2. The cloud gradually clamps down, but you continue hoping that there will be just enough clearance at the head of the valey that you know so well.
3. There isn't clearance and by now there is no room to turn and remain in VMC, and even if you can turn the back door has been silently closed. You try to climb or turn on instruments and Two minutes later, on average, you are dead.
To paraphrase the old Master Mariners exam question; "What do you do when you are rated VFR and you are flying up a valley into rising terrain covered with low cloud? The answer can only be "Never let yourself be found in such a situation".
While I am not instrument rated, I would suspect, that it is very different and more dangerous transitioning from VMC into IMC from a height of 200 feet above trees, below LSALT, probably with a distressed passenger or two, as against leaving an airport with an IFR flight plan in your lap and all your navaids, waypoints and frequencies set up, with your mind calm and mentally prepared to fly IFR.
To put it another way, I don't think "Oh I'll just plan and file VFR and if the weather goes bad, I'll just transition to IFR'. Is a sound idea.
For that reason I think DFC's suggestion is the better one.
Plan A: Prepare and fly IFR.
Plan B: Fly VFR as a bonus if weather permits.
As for me
Plan A: Prepare and fly VFR
Plan B: If it looks like VFR is dodgy, go somewhere else or do something else.
I pray that all this is merely an academic argument for all of us forever.
I am a simple low time VFR pilot.
The available and voluminous documentation on VFR into IMC consistently says the same thing.
1. Young players are seduced into scud running with maybe a bit of "get there-itis" as well.
2. The cloud gradually clamps down, but you continue hoping that there will be just enough clearance at the head of the valey that you know so well.
3. There isn't clearance and by now there is no room to turn and remain in VMC, and even if you can turn the back door has been silently closed. You try to climb or turn on instruments and Two minutes later, on average, you are dead.
To paraphrase the old Master Mariners exam question; "What do you do when you are rated VFR and you are flying up a valley into rising terrain covered with low cloud? The answer can only be "Never let yourself be found in such a situation".
While I am not instrument rated, I would suspect, that it is very different and more dangerous transitioning from VMC into IMC from a height of 200 feet above trees, below LSALT, probably with a distressed passenger or two, as against leaving an airport with an IFR flight plan in your lap and all your navaids, waypoints and frequencies set up, with your mind calm and mentally prepared to fly IFR.
To put it another way, I don't think "Oh I'll just plan and file VFR and if the weather goes bad, I'll just transition to IFR'. Is a sound idea.
For that reason I think DFC's suggestion is the better one.
Plan A: Prepare and fly IFR.
Plan B: Fly VFR as a bonus if weather permits.
As for me
Plan A: Prepare and fly VFR
Plan B: If it looks like VFR is dodgy, go somewhere else or do something else.
I pray that all this is merely an academic argument for all of us forever.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,414
Likes: 2
From: Europe
To avoid that we are talking across purposes here it would probably be best to clarify the different scenarios.
If you have a vanilla PPL, or an IMCR/IR and are not current. Stay out of IMC.
But those with an IMCR/IR and are current will all climb into IMC carry on or return to VMC conditions or fly on doing a procedure at the end.
The notion, as advocated by DFC, that we (current IMCR/IR jockeys) should all make a precautionary landing is rubbish.
If DFC reckons that the transition VFR->IFR is so dangerous that it should can only be done after hours of preparation and deliberation beforehand, that may say something about his/her ability to do so.
Anyone who knows anything about flying in IMC will just laugh at his suggestion.
Anyone who knows anything about flying in IMC and knows that this may be on the cards will have appropriate charts and plates as standard in their steed.
The situation in the UK is a bit different from a lot of other places, in that you can fly IFR here (in IMC) without a clearance or any service (radar or otherwise).
If you have a vanilla PPL, or an IMCR/IR and are not current. Stay out of IMC.
But those with an IMCR/IR and are current will all climb into IMC carry on or return to VMC conditions or fly on doing a procedure at the end.
The notion, as advocated by DFC, that we (current IMCR/IR jockeys) should all make a precautionary landing is rubbish.
If DFC reckons that the transition VFR->IFR is so dangerous that it should can only be done after hours of preparation and deliberation beforehand, that may say something about his/her ability to do so.
Anyone who knows anything about flying in IMC will just laugh at his suggestion.
Anyone who knows anything about flying in IMC and knows that this may be on the cards will have appropriate charts and plates as standard in their steed.
The situation in the UK is a bit different from a lot of other places, in that you can fly IFR here (in IMC) without a clearance or any service (radar or otherwise).
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
It is interesting to read the comments of other pilots particularly those without an IR of any sort. Rightly they have had drummed into them the importance of remaining visual and if they really cant remain visual for whatever reason making a landing in the nearest field. We all seem to be in complete agreement on this.
I do however get the impression that many of those same pilots and some with instrument ratings have little or no idea of instrument flying in the real world - it seems to be portrayed as some sort of magical demonic art form for the slightly deranged or at least more irresponsible among us.
Returning to the little experience I encountered - you are over the sea at say 800 feet just below the base and wanting to turn in land. It is quite clear just north of the coast the base is much lower - maybe five hundred feet or less but you know 40 miles in land the base is around 1,800 feet with decent holes, blue sky above. You know the weather is clearing from the north west the direction in which you are going. You are in a control zone so you can get a RIS and there is a vectored ILS available within the same zone should you need it. You have got the plates with you as well because you typically carry the plates with you for most of the available procedures in the local area. You have got sufficient fuel to return to base and are very familiar with the approaches there. You were not necessarily expecting to go IMC and had hoped to reach your destination without doing so but it was at the back of your mind when you departed. All systems are functioning normally. OK, so you tell the controller you want to climb IFR to the MSA which you have checked on your chart and then wish to head north west with a RIS. You also tell them when you get near your destination you will be looking for a descent maintaining VMC. You have already checked all the instruments are functioning normally and have the luxury you have been flying with them for a little while rather than having entered IMC just after departure. You have also settled into the flying and although you have been in VMC the viz has not been great and you have already been partially on instruments. In short, you are a lot more comfortable than if you had just departed into weather. You have plenty of diversion options, you have a pretty good idea where the tops are, and you know there is no risk of freezing or Cbs. You have a number of VORs available to track and cross refer, the GPS is behaving itself (as it always does) and you have been given a heading by the unit you are working. You trim for the climb, go straight onto instruments and a few minutes later settle down at 2,400 feet above the MSA in IMC. In due course the holes start appearing as expected and a comfortable descent still under a RIS until visual is carried out and an uneventful landing.
That is in my experience quite typical. There are of course plenty of permutations about that theme. With an instrument rating, it is not rocket science, it is not scary, and you certainly don’t feel like you are practising a magical demonic art form. You don’t declare a mayday and you certainly don’t panic. You don’t want your AI to fail, you obviously don’t want the engine to fail and if either did you would wish you had another engine or were more current flying the turn and slip, but you still reckon you would cope with the first event reasonably well, if maybe not the second. You are glad you are not doing 400 knots in a fast jet coming out of low level in terrain that is for sure.
Is it more risky than turning back from whence you came VMC? Yes, probably a bit, but only by a very marginal amount in this scenario. Do you think you have just had a close shave? - certainly not. Did you feel any pressure to make the transition? - no, in fact you would have been less comfortable scud running north.
Rightly or wrongly that is my experience of flying with a current instrument rating. Rightly or wrongly as far as I can see it is not illegal and rightly or wrongly in my assessment the risk is only very very marginally greater than continuing VMC - in fact there comes a point when I would far rather be IMC than in marginal VMC.
As I said plenty of permutations about a theme, and plenty of occasions when a climb into IMC with freezing conditions, turbulence, Cbs., lack of suitable diversions etc etc would all contribute to degrade the comfort factor and leave you wishing very firmly you were somewhere else! However you can always say if so and so happens or you encounter so and so then you will have a problem and that is why as pilots we are trained to assess the situation and use our judgement to decide whether we are putting ourselves and others at risk. Of course, unfortunately we do not always get it right. The CAA have consistently said any flying IMC with a single engine public transport is too risky. They may be right, and for sure it is a point of view, albeit the statistics do not appear to support their argument. In my opinion it is simply wrong to suggest that in all conditions a current instrument rated pilot will struggle transitioning from VMC to IMC whatever planning he may or may not have done.
I do however get the impression that many of those same pilots and some with instrument ratings have little or no idea of instrument flying in the real world - it seems to be portrayed as some sort of magical demonic art form for the slightly deranged or at least more irresponsible among us.
Returning to the little experience I encountered - you are over the sea at say 800 feet just below the base and wanting to turn in land. It is quite clear just north of the coast the base is much lower - maybe five hundred feet or less but you know 40 miles in land the base is around 1,800 feet with decent holes, blue sky above. You know the weather is clearing from the north west the direction in which you are going. You are in a control zone so you can get a RIS and there is a vectored ILS available within the same zone should you need it. You have got the plates with you as well because you typically carry the plates with you for most of the available procedures in the local area. You have got sufficient fuel to return to base and are very familiar with the approaches there. You were not necessarily expecting to go IMC and had hoped to reach your destination without doing so but it was at the back of your mind when you departed. All systems are functioning normally. OK, so you tell the controller you want to climb IFR to the MSA which you have checked on your chart and then wish to head north west with a RIS. You also tell them when you get near your destination you will be looking for a descent maintaining VMC. You have already checked all the instruments are functioning normally and have the luxury you have been flying with them for a little while rather than having entered IMC just after departure. You have also settled into the flying and although you have been in VMC the viz has not been great and you have already been partially on instruments. In short, you are a lot more comfortable than if you had just departed into weather. You have plenty of diversion options, you have a pretty good idea where the tops are, and you know there is no risk of freezing or Cbs. You have a number of VORs available to track and cross refer, the GPS is behaving itself (as it always does) and you have been given a heading by the unit you are working. You trim for the climb, go straight onto instruments and a few minutes later settle down at 2,400 feet above the MSA in IMC. In due course the holes start appearing as expected and a comfortable descent still under a RIS until visual is carried out and an uneventful landing.
That is in my experience quite typical. There are of course plenty of permutations about that theme. With an instrument rating, it is not rocket science, it is not scary, and you certainly don’t feel like you are practising a magical demonic art form. You don’t declare a mayday and you certainly don’t panic. You don’t want your AI to fail, you obviously don’t want the engine to fail and if either did you would wish you had another engine or were more current flying the turn and slip, but you still reckon you would cope with the first event reasonably well, if maybe not the second. You are glad you are not doing 400 knots in a fast jet coming out of low level in terrain that is for sure.
Is it more risky than turning back from whence you came VMC? Yes, probably a bit, but only by a very marginal amount in this scenario. Do you think you have just had a close shave? - certainly not. Did you feel any pressure to make the transition? - no, in fact you would have been less comfortable scud running north.
Rightly or wrongly that is my experience of flying with a current instrument rating. Rightly or wrongly as far as I can see it is not illegal and rightly or wrongly in my assessment the risk is only very very marginally greater than continuing VMC - in fact there comes a point when I would far rather be IMC than in marginal VMC.
As I said plenty of permutations about a theme, and plenty of occasions when a climb into IMC with freezing conditions, turbulence, Cbs., lack of suitable diversions etc etc would all contribute to degrade the comfort factor and leave you wishing very firmly you were somewhere else! However you can always say if so and so happens or you encounter so and so then you will have a problem and that is why as pilots we are trained to assess the situation and use our judgement to decide whether we are putting ourselves and others at risk. Of course, unfortunately we do not always get it right. The CAA have consistently said any flying IMC with a single engine public transport is too risky. They may be right, and for sure it is a point of view, albeit the statistics do not appear to support their argument. In my opinion it is simply wrong to suggest that in all conditions a current instrument rated pilot will struggle transitioning from VMC to IMC whatever planning he may or may not have done.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
From: The Heart
Fuji,
What you describe sounds much more like an IFR flight which you will continue VFR is conditions allow.
I don't think this is anyway unsafe and I don't think that this is a scenario which claims so many victims.
Effectively, the ability to continue VMC is a bonus, a positive result. If the plan was to fly VMC and you had to go IMC then this would be a failure in the original plan, a negative with the pyschological baggage that goes along with that.
It's a like a false expectation. You have reports that the weather is better in the direction you want to go but can see a spell of scud-running. OK, go for it, it's only a shower or something along those lines (only 40 nm, perhaps).
Now, when you find that 5 minutes are up or you've flown the 40 miles and find yourself still in the thick, you have a host of issues, all of which negative and none of which are going to improve your further performance (except a little adrenalin, maybe).
When faced with this scenario it would be foolish to throw away any options. Being qualified to take another course doesn't necessarily make that the best one.
What you describe sounds much more like an IFR flight which you will continue VFR is conditions allow.
I don't think this is anyway unsafe and I don't think that this is a scenario which claims so many victims.
Effectively, the ability to continue VMC is a bonus, a positive result. If the plan was to fly VMC and you had to go IMC then this would be a failure in the original plan, a negative with the pyschological baggage that goes along with that.
It's a like a false expectation. You have reports that the weather is better in the direction you want to go but can see a spell of scud-running. OK, go for it, it's only a shower or something along those lines (only 40 nm, perhaps).
Now, when you find that 5 minutes are up or you've flown the 40 miles and find yourself still in the thick, you have a host of issues, all of which negative and none of which are going to improve your further performance (except a little adrenalin, maybe).
When faced with this scenario it would be foolish to throw away any options. Being qualified to take another course doesn't necessarily make that the best one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fuji,
I don't disagree with your sentiments, then again I don't disagree with DFC's either. I can understand and comprehend both arguments. However, I don't actually remember being trained to assess situations, other than answering a few textbook scenarios on warm fronts, freezing rain, CB maturation and the like. The actual cognitive ability to cope is a different matter altogether. I guess that some of us have it (Fuji's argument) and some of us don't (DFC's argument). There is the obvious third option, but I don't wish to appear conceited so I'll leave it at that 
...that is why as pilots we are trained to assess the situation and use our judgement to decide whether we are putting ourselves and others at risk
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
From: Leicestershire
I’m with you on this one, Fuji. When I plan a flight I always look at the IFR/IMC option. I take the approach plates for the any airports that might be useful on the flight; I check the weather; the freezing level; the TAFs at the local airports. Before flight I check the instruments and if I decide to go into IMC, I go in with a plan and although I’m hoping for a short trip through the fluffy stuff to VMC on top, I’m prepared for solid IMC all the way to my destination, duff weather there and so a diversion to my alternate with ILS and an approach to minimums there – and all that with a vacuum failure.
It is far better to come up with a plan on the ground rather than trying to muddle through when blind panic has set in when you’re lost in cloud. If you haven’t got a plan and aren’t current on flying on instruments and doing approaches to minimums then a trip into cloud can be very dangerous.
IMC flying, like all flying isn’t dangerous, but it is very unforgiving.
It is far better to come up with a plan on the ground rather than trying to muddle through when blind panic has set in when you’re lost in cloud. If you haven’t got a plan and aren’t current on flying on instruments and doing approaches to minimums then a trip into cloud can be very dangerous.
IMC flying, like all flying isn’t dangerous, but it is very unforgiving.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: UK
I agree if you plan for the IMC option from the word go, there is no issue. Similarly there is no problem with being forced towards MSA due to worsening weather and electing to IMC if you are current and practised.
But what if you are a PPL who flys 70 hrs/ yr. You might have an IMCR but it's dusty. You are trying to get home on Sunday pm and you know the aerodrome (which has no approach aids) is only a few miles over the next bit of high ground. But you are at 800' running the scud, the gound is rising gently and it looks pretty dark ahead. What do you do? This is what I think the originator the thread was trying to get across.
I agree that DFC was maybe a little rash in the way he illustrated his point. But the point is sound. Going IMC whilst well below MSA, with an unpracticed scan, in weather that is not as forecast, wondering if the plates crumpled in the bottom the flight bag are reachable or indeed current..... etc etc... is not good.
And for the record, I do not have an IMC rating - I can't even fly a fixed wing. I do no private flying anymore (although I wish I could). So I am complete imposter on this forum. But that doesn't mean to say that I do not know what I am talking about.
But what if you are a PPL who flys 70 hrs/ yr. You might have an IMCR but it's dusty. You are trying to get home on Sunday pm and you know the aerodrome (which has no approach aids) is only a few miles over the next bit of high ground. But you are at 800' running the scud, the gound is rising gently and it looks pretty dark ahead. What do you do? This is what I think the originator the thread was trying to get across.
I agree that DFC was maybe a little rash in the way he illustrated his point. But the point is sound. Going IMC whilst well below MSA, with an unpracticed scan, in weather that is not as forecast, wondering if the plates crumpled in the bottom the flight bag are reachable or indeed current..... etc etc... is not good.
And for the record, I do not have an IMC rating - I can't even fly a fixed wing. I do no private flying anymore (although I wish I could). So I am complete imposter on this forum. But that doesn't mean to say that I do not know what I am talking about.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Miserlou
We are splitting hairs on terminology here.
In UK airspace, Class D/G (no airways), there is no practical difference between
a) flying VFR while equipped and planned for IFR
b) flying IFR and ending up in VMC here and there
I do a) all the time; that's my normal flight planning mode and IMHO any instrument rated pilot should plan all flights that way (why the hell did you do your IMCR/IR if you then chuck away the extra options?).
Occassionally I do b) but I tend to do it only when the weather on departure is either atrocious or the tower won't allow a VFR departure in the conditions. It has the advantage that one gets an IFR departure clearance and the tower contacts the next radar ATCU en-route with your details and often one even gets a squawk allocated which saves messing about later. But - absent aforementioned conditions - it is rarely necessary because one can usually depart VFR and change to IFR immediately afterwards.
I think there are a number of people on here who have no instrument training (other than from the CAA safety seminar presenter
) and have no idea beyond flight in VMC. I bet most of them have never even been in a well equipped modern plane.
boomerangben, why would someone go IMC when below the MSA? The whole idea of the instrument option is to AVOID flying below the MSA! And only an idiot would have out of date plates etc.
You are playing the same game as DFC: picking up an example pilot who shouldn't be doing something (because he's not trained and/or not current) and then using that to bash those that are trained and are current (and have current plates and don't have them at the bottom of their bag).
We are splitting hairs on terminology here.
In UK airspace, Class D/G (no airways), there is no practical difference between
a) flying VFR while equipped and planned for IFR
b) flying IFR and ending up in VMC here and there
I do a) all the time; that's my normal flight planning mode and IMHO any instrument rated pilot should plan all flights that way (why the hell did you do your IMCR/IR if you then chuck away the extra options?).
Occassionally I do b) but I tend to do it only when the weather on departure is either atrocious or the tower won't allow a VFR departure in the conditions. It has the advantage that one gets an IFR departure clearance and the tower contacts the next radar ATCU en-route with your details and often one even gets a squawk allocated which saves messing about later. But - absent aforementioned conditions - it is rarely necessary because one can usually depart VFR and change to IFR immediately afterwards.
I think there are a number of people on here who have no instrument training (other than from the CAA safety seminar presenter
) and have no idea beyond flight in VMC. I bet most of them have never even been in a well equipped modern plane.boomerangben, why would someone go IMC when below the MSA? The whole idea of the instrument option is to AVOID flying below the MSA! And only an idiot would have out of date plates etc.
You are playing the same game as DFC: picking up an example pilot who shouldn't be doing something (because he's not trained and/or not current) and then using that to bash those that are trained and are current (and have current plates and don't have them at the bottom of their bag).
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
IO540,
There isn't much point in debating flight in IMC with a pilot who would do the above. It's fair enough for a PPL but it removes all credibility for his views on the safety of flight in IMC
This is not debating flight in IMC - it is about the unplanned/unexpected transition to IMC on a VFR flight. If it is fair enough for a PPL/IR or PPL/IMC holder, what difference the ATPL holder in the same sticky situation?
Class D airspace is controlled airspace - one has to be very clear about what rules one plans to operate under and a sudden request to go from VFR to IFR can be delayed for traffic reasons and cause unnecessary delays to other traffic in the system.
I love your comment - The whole idea of the instrument option is to AVOID flying below the MSA because it sits at odds with Fuji's story about flying round at 800ft.
---------
Fuji,
I read your story of a typical flight that you make and while I know it is not unusual, it shows how IMC holders are perhaps unaware of just what their operating practices look like with the old 20/20 hindsight (which always prevails after an acident). Some examples -
You state that you knew that there was an 800ft cloudbase over the sea and that it lowered to 500 ft overland on your proposed route but got better closer to home............why on earth did you even considder the VFR option in such marginal weather? Surely you must have known at the planning stage that this was going to be either an IFR flight or a scud running marginal VFR flight? Thus again I think that you were aware from the start and had planned this as an IFR flight.
You are in a control zone so you can get a RIS and there is a vectored ILS available within the same zone should you need it
RIS is a service outside controlled airspace Control Zones mean Air Traffic Control Service. Ask an ATCO what they think of VFR flights that suddenly declare a desire to go IFR and climb in the middle of their zone and what an effect it has on their workload, how it affects all the other properly planned IFR flights within the zone and what they think when the IMC weather was well forecast?
it is not scary
It sure scares the heck out of me when I am being vectored to the ILS and some little guy in the zone suddenly declares a serious need to go IFR and climb in the zone........my first thought is "Is that idiot going to climb up and hit me?".......followed by "That plonker is probably going to cause me to miss this approach" but hey......it's bread and butter stuff for IMC holders like you eh?
I am sure that you are only using a story that never really happened to illustrate your point of view....cause if it did happen for real then the departing VFR in marginal conditions, flying at 800ft over water to remain VMC and then calling up in a control zone for RIS and IFR climb would scare the heck out of everyone!
--------
Flyin Dutch,
So what is it?
It is simple - I will not go unplanned IMC. I will avoid it at all costs. If I am stupid enough to be left with no other option or I am evem more stupid and end up unexpectidely IMC, I will climb, 7700, Mayday and get diverted to safety ASAP. I would make the appropriate report after my hopefully safe arrival.
My call would obvously state current IR holder - after all I do several IR renewals per year and fly lots of IFR. I would still consider myself a fool for having go into that sitiation and would think hard about where the planning or operation went wrong and how to avoid it happening ever again.
1. Your personal minima for flying VFR in the UK is that you can stay at least 1000ft under the cloudbase (for fear of aeroplanes tumbling out of that cloudbase from nowhere)
2. That people should stick to their personal minima
3. That your personal minima over Wales is 2500ft.
So what is your personal minima and can you at least on here stick to that to avoid confusion amongst us poor readers.
I understand that "at least 1000ft" means 1000ft or greather. Thus being 5000ft below the cloud base is consistent with being at least 1000ft below the cloud.
Over Wales due to the terrain one will probably have a cruise level of 3000ft or more. The legal minima for VMC at that height is 1000ft vertically from cloud, the undulating terrain may make turbulence and wave which I add on another 500ft at times to my cruise altitude and then another 1000ft to allow for the cloud continuing to lower during a diversion 1000+1000+500=2500ft.
Over lower terrain and in smooth air with a cruise level below 3000ft, 1000ft below cloud should allow that a diversion would result in an arrival while still VMC i.e. clear of cloud (but watch out for the DIY approach guys dropping out of ther bottom!
-----------
Overall, If this was a debate about flying single engine across large amounts of water, we would have some who say there is nothing wrong and it is all personal risk and then we would have the others who would say never do it in anything other than a twin. Both camps have their merit. However I doubt that the SEP cross water camp would be calling the twin camp whimps or saying that they are wrong to hold such conservative views to safety would they?
Can't remember who made the point earlier - but yes, the CAA do recomend that in certain critical situtaions, the action after engine failure on a light twin is to close both throttles and force land the aircraft - re-inforced after the tragic Glasgow fatal accident.
Regards,
DFC
There isn't much point in debating flight in IMC with a pilot who would do the above. It's fair enough for a PPL but it removes all credibility for his views on the safety of flight in IMC
This is not debating flight in IMC - it is about the unplanned/unexpected transition to IMC on a VFR flight. If it is fair enough for a PPL/IR or PPL/IMC holder, what difference the ATPL holder in the same sticky situation?
Class D airspace is controlled airspace - one has to be very clear about what rules one plans to operate under and a sudden request to go from VFR to IFR can be delayed for traffic reasons and cause unnecessary delays to other traffic in the system.
I love your comment - The whole idea of the instrument option is to AVOID flying below the MSA because it sits at odds with Fuji's story about flying round at 800ft.
---------
Fuji,
I read your story of a typical flight that you make and while I know it is not unusual, it shows how IMC holders are perhaps unaware of just what their operating practices look like with the old 20/20 hindsight (which always prevails after an acident). Some examples -
You state that you knew that there was an 800ft cloudbase over the sea and that it lowered to 500 ft overland on your proposed route but got better closer to home............why on earth did you even considder the VFR option in such marginal weather? Surely you must have known at the planning stage that this was going to be either an IFR flight or a scud running marginal VFR flight? Thus again I think that you were aware from the start and had planned this as an IFR flight.
You are in a control zone so you can get a RIS and there is a vectored ILS available within the same zone should you need it
RIS is a service outside controlled airspace Control Zones mean Air Traffic Control Service. Ask an ATCO what they think of VFR flights that suddenly declare a desire to go IFR and climb in the middle of their zone and what an effect it has on their workload, how it affects all the other properly planned IFR flights within the zone and what they think when the IMC weather was well forecast?
it is not scary
It sure scares the heck out of me when I am being vectored to the ILS and some little guy in the zone suddenly declares a serious need to go IFR and climb in the zone........my first thought is "Is that idiot going to climb up and hit me?".......followed by "That plonker is probably going to cause me to miss this approach" but hey......it's bread and butter stuff for IMC holders like you eh?
I am sure that you are only using a story that never really happened to illustrate your point of view....cause if it did happen for real then the departing VFR in marginal conditions, flying at 800ft over water to remain VMC and then calling up in a control zone for RIS and IFR climb would scare the heck out of everyone!
--------
Flyin Dutch,
So what is it?
It is simple - I will not go unplanned IMC. I will avoid it at all costs. If I am stupid enough to be left with no other option or I am evem more stupid and end up unexpectidely IMC, I will climb, 7700, Mayday and get diverted to safety ASAP. I would make the appropriate report after my hopefully safe arrival.
My call would obvously state current IR holder - after all I do several IR renewals per year and fly lots of IFR. I would still consider myself a fool for having go into that sitiation and would think hard about where the planning or operation went wrong and how to avoid it happening ever again.
1. Your personal minima for flying VFR in the UK is that you can stay at least 1000ft under the cloudbase (for fear of aeroplanes tumbling out of that cloudbase from nowhere)
2. That people should stick to their personal minima
3. That your personal minima over Wales is 2500ft.
So what is your personal minima and can you at least on here stick to that to avoid confusion amongst us poor readers.
I understand that "at least 1000ft" means 1000ft or greather. Thus being 5000ft below the cloud base is consistent with being at least 1000ft below the cloud.
Over Wales due to the terrain one will probably have a cruise level of 3000ft or more. The legal minima for VMC at that height is 1000ft vertically from cloud, the undulating terrain may make turbulence and wave which I add on another 500ft at times to my cruise altitude and then another 1000ft to allow for the cloud continuing to lower during a diversion 1000+1000+500=2500ft.
Over lower terrain and in smooth air with a cruise level below 3000ft, 1000ft below cloud should allow that a diversion would result in an arrival while still VMC i.e. clear of cloud (but watch out for the DIY approach guys dropping out of ther bottom!
-----------
Overall, If this was a debate about flying single engine across large amounts of water, we would have some who say there is nothing wrong and it is all personal risk and then we would have the others who would say never do it in anything other than a twin. Both camps have their merit. However I doubt that the SEP cross water camp would be calling the twin camp whimps or saying that they are wrong to hold such conservative views to safety would they?
Can't remember who made the point earlier - but yes, the CAA do recomend that in certain critical situtaions, the action after engine failure on a light twin is to close both throttles and force land the aircraft - re-inforced after the tragic Glasgow fatal accident.
Regards,
DFC
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Its boils down to personal ability. If you don't have the ability, even though a pilot has an IR, and he/she FEELS the need to sqwark 7700 and declare a mayday when entering a bit of cloud.......then thats fine, and their choice.
Personnally I don't see anything wrong with transitioning from VFR to IFR, it is done all the time in America where you have 100 mile vis in the deserts, and cloud along the coasts. If I had declared a mayday every time I had to request a pop-up clearance, I'm sure the FAA would have taken my ticket away by now....
It is no different than climbing on an IFR flight plan, and transitioning from VMC to IMC.....you still HAVE to look out of the window during the VMC phase, then transition to instruments during the IMC phase.....I really can't see a problem? I also carry approach plates up front with me, along with an IFR chart even if flying VFR, as I'm sure most IR/IMC rated pilots would do......isn't this common sense?
IN my experience, in the UK, it is easy to get a radar vectored ILS in a class D zone, transitioning from VFR to IFR.....
I agree though, time to give up....
Personnally I don't see anything wrong with transitioning from VFR to IFR, it is done all the time in America where you have 100 mile vis in the deserts, and cloud along the coasts. If I had declared a mayday every time I had to request a pop-up clearance, I'm sure the FAA would have taken my ticket away by now....
It is no different than climbing on an IFR flight plan, and transitioning from VMC to IMC.....you still HAVE to look out of the window during the VMC phase, then transition to instruments during the IMC phase.....I really can't see a problem? I also carry approach plates up front with me, along with an IFR chart even if flying VFR, as I'm sure most IR/IMC rated pilots would do......isn't this common sense?
IN my experience, in the UK, it is easy to get a radar vectored ILS in a class D zone, transitioning from VFR to IFR.....
I agree though, time to give up....
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
It has nothing to do with ability. The person who says that will be the same person who lands in a 20Kt crosswind and thinks that shows some superior ability over a pilot (in the same aircraft type) who requests a more into wind runway. That is the wrong type of peer pressure and is dangerous because it can have an effect on those that don't know better.
To end up, we must agree that the teaching of the IR and the IMC ratings demonstrate a well tried and tested system of teaching all the normal elements and the unexpected or emergency elements also during IFR IMC flight.
How much time on the IR is spent departing VFR and then without any plan and little notice going IFR. Same goes for the IMC. In both cases students are drummed with the importance of carefull and thorough pre-flight planing and making the correct decisions as the earliest opportunity.
Perhaps the IMC should be increased to 20 hours and more transitions from VFR flight to unexpected IFR done and of course the resultant scramble round for a frequency and someone to provide some assistance. Then if what some say is the norm for UK operations would be reflected in the training for the UK only rating.
To finish, I remember the old poster with two aircraft approaching a small fluffy cloud and each pilot saying "I'll just pop through this little cloud".
Regards,
DFC
To end up, we must agree that the teaching of the IR and the IMC ratings demonstrate a well tried and tested system of teaching all the normal elements and the unexpected or emergency elements also during IFR IMC flight.
How much time on the IR is spent departing VFR and then without any plan and little notice going IFR. Same goes for the IMC. In both cases students are drummed with the importance of carefull and thorough pre-flight planing and making the correct decisions as the earliest opportunity.
Perhaps the IMC should be increased to 20 hours and more transitions from VFR flight to unexpected IFR done and of course the resultant scramble round for a frequency and someone to provide some assistance. Then if what some say is the norm for UK operations would be reflected in the training for the UK only rating.
To finish, I remember the old poster with two aircraft approaching a small fluffy cloud and each pilot saying "I'll just pop through this little cloud".
Regards,
DFC
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Just a passing thought.
There are some very valid and clear posts above about the inadvisability of going into IMC if you aren't current in the practice. Many of those people have advocated, if all else fails, landing in a field.
However picking, then landing in, a field is a flying skill like any other. There are many issues to be considered - surface wind, surface condition, length, slope, setting it up, hopefully picking a field that you can fly out of again once things have improved.
Now how many people practice all that with any regularity?
Because if you haven't, it may be that a "180" in IMC for a few minutes back into known clear space could be the less risky option.
If you aren't practicing either, you probably need to stick to flying in perfect VMC over flat ground with very big fields !
G
There are some very valid and clear posts above about the inadvisability of going into IMC if you aren't current in the practice. Many of those people have advocated, if all else fails, landing in a field.
However picking, then landing in, a field is a flying skill like any other. There are many issues to be considered - surface wind, surface condition, length, slope, setting it up, hopefully picking a field that you can fly out of again once things have improved.
Now how many people practice all that with any regularity?
Because if you haven't, it may be that a "180" in IMC for a few minutes back into known clear space could be the less risky option.
If you aren't practicing either, you probably need to stick to flying in perfect VMC over flat ground with very big fields !
G
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
DFC
The flight happened almost exactly as recounted. The base and viz along the coast was probably a bit better - certainly no problem VFR. The base and viz through the Southampton zone was unexpected and not predicted by either the departing TAF or METAR.
My friend just ahead in another aircraft continued VFR.
Interestingly two other aircraft were routing CI to Southampton on VFR flight plans. Both obviously saw the poorer weather over the coast and were OFFERED IFR by the controller. A couple of other commercial guys turned up around the same time. Strangely it all worked, the controller was as helpful and polite as ever and seemed to be particularly unsurprised by the whole event. In fact one of the commercial guys appeared to be struggling rather more than the rest of us.
There are times I am as worried by the “little guy” as you, particularly when they sound like they don’t really know what they are doing. However, by the aircraft giving a VFR position report at Lymington I suppose we all assume a commercial captain descending on the ILS would himself have sufficient situational awareness to realise this "plonker" is not a threat.
I would be interested how many times you are aware an approach has been broken off by a “plonker” popping up on a declared transition from VFR to IFR. I am not talking about pilots inadvertently entering a control zone or obviously being lost. How many times have you broken off an approach for this reason? I also know I would be far happier with our friendly plonker squawking rather than him lost and bimbling around so that when I first saw him I had just descended through the base on my approach, although I suppose primary radar and traffic avoidance might have proved some help along the way. Ah well, I suppose when we have all got our mode S installed you will be able to relax.
In all my time flying I have never heard a pilot state he has a current instrument rating - not once. I have occasionally heard a controller ask a pilot whether he can accept an IFR clearance, quite different.
Pilots bumping into each other in fluffy clouds, declaring themselves to be current instrument rated pilots and scarring the hell out of others being vectored for the ILS is all good emotive stuff but I don’t think it really contributes anything to this debate other than leave some of us wondering if you really know what you are talking about.
Thats my lot.
The flight happened almost exactly as recounted. The base and viz along the coast was probably a bit better - certainly no problem VFR. The base and viz through the Southampton zone was unexpected and not predicted by either the departing TAF or METAR.
My friend just ahead in another aircraft continued VFR.
Interestingly two other aircraft were routing CI to Southampton on VFR flight plans. Both obviously saw the poorer weather over the coast and were OFFERED IFR by the controller. A couple of other commercial guys turned up around the same time. Strangely it all worked, the controller was as helpful and polite as ever and seemed to be particularly unsurprised by the whole event. In fact one of the commercial guys appeared to be struggling rather more than the rest of us.
There are times I am as worried by the “little guy” as you, particularly when they sound like they don’t really know what they are doing. However, by the aircraft giving a VFR position report at Lymington I suppose we all assume a commercial captain descending on the ILS would himself have sufficient situational awareness to realise this "plonker" is not a threat.
I would be interested how many times you are aware an approach has been broken off by a “plonker” popping up on a declared transition from VFR to IFR. I am not talking about pilots inadvertently entering a control zone or obviously being lost. How many times have you broken off an approach for this reason? I also know I would be far happier with our friendly plonker squawking rather than him lost and bimbling around so that when I first saw him I had just descended through the base on my approach, although I suppose primary radar and traffic avoidance might have proved some help along the way. Ah well, I suppose when we have all got our mode S installed you will be able to relax.
In all my time flying I have never heard a pilot state he has a current instrument rating - not once. I have occasionally heard a controller ask a pilot whether he can accept an IFR clearance, quite different.
Pilots bumping into each other in fluffy clouds, declaring themselves to be current instrument rated pilots and scarring the hell out of others being vectored for the ILS is all good emotive stuff but I don’t think it really contributes anything to this debate other than leave some of us wondering if you really know what you are talking about.
Thats my lot.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Interesting experience this morning. I went down to Cambridge airport intending a VFR flight to Sandtoft to put some time on a fairly new engine.
(Cambridge) TAF EGSC 160610Z 160716 23013KT 9999 SCT020 TEMPO 0811 7000 -RA BECMG 1114 7000 -RA BKN012 PROB40 TEMPO 1215 20015G25KT 4500 DZ BKN008 TEMPO 1516 9999 BKN017=
(Doncaster) TAF EGCN 160603Z 160716 21010KT 9999 SCT020 SCT050=
I think I probably still had those in my head when I departed Cambridge VFR at 1040, though they had been updated to:
TAF EGSC 160905Z 161019 23013KT 9999 SCT020 BECMG 1012 BKN012 PROB40 TEMPO 1114 20015G25KT 4000 RA BKN008 TEMPO 1519 BKN017=
TAF EGCN 160915Z 161019 21013KT 9999 SCT018 BKN040 PROB30 TEMPO 1019 5000 -RADZ BKN012=
It still seemed that a VFR arrival at Sandtoft would be possible, though I'd taken plates for Cambridge and Doncaster. However by then the ceiling was around 1800 ft so I asked for a climb to FL45 and cruised on top.
The transition to instruments was uneventful, despite a lot of rust on my IR. I decided to press on, thinking that if I couldn't get in to Sandtoft, I'd just turn around and come back. It took an embarrassingly large number seconds before I thought "doh, fuel", and realised that I'd better make sure that I could do that with decent IFR reserves, which I hadn't previously considered. I had intended to pick up fuel at Sandtoft and I'd departed with about 2.5 hours in the tanks. It seemed to pan out, just, so I continued.
I ended up descending to 2000 ft in solid IMC close to Sandtoft. I asked Sandtoft for a base, which was 1100 ft, so I gave up and went home at FL55. When I got back to Cambridge it had improved and I flew the ILS in excellent vis from about 2000 ft, with plenty of reserve.
I thought of this thread. I don't think there was anything that I did that involved significant risk, but I did kick myself a little that I hadn't bothered to plan the flight more thoroughly as IFR.
(Cambridge) TAF EGSC 160610Z 160716 23013KT 9999 SCT020 TEMPO 0811 7000 -RA BECMG 1114 7000 -RA BKN012 PROB40 TEMPO 1215 20015G25KT 4500 DZ BKN008 TEMPO 1516 9999 BKN017=
(Doncaster) TAF EGCN 160603Z 160716 21010KT 9999 SCT020 SCT050=
I think I probably still had those in my head when I departed Cambridge VFR at 1040, though they had been updated to:
TAF EGSC 160905Z 161019 23013KT 9999 SCT020 BECMG 1012 BKN012 PROB40 TEMPO 1114 20015G25KT 4000 RA BKN008 TEMPO 1519 BKN017=
TAF EGCN 160915Z 161019 21013KT 9999 SCT018 BKN040 PROB30 TEMPO 1019 5000 -RADZ BKN012=
It still seemed that a VFR arrival at Sandtoft would be possible, though I'd taken plates for Cambridge and Doncaster. However by then the ceiling was around 1800 ft so I asked for a climb to FL45 and cruised on top.
The transition to instruments was uneventful, despite a lot of rust on my IR. I decided to press on, thinking that if I couldn't get in to Sandtoft, I'd just turn around and come back. It took an embarrassingly large number seconds before I thought "doh, fuel", and realised that I'd better make sure that I could do that with decent IFR reserves, which I hadn't previously considered. I had intended to pick up fuel at Sandtoft and I'd departed with about 2.5 hours in the tanks. It seemed to pan out, just, so I continued.
I ended up descending to 2000 ft in solid IMC close to Sandtoft. I asked Sandtoft for a base, which was 1100 ft, so I gave up and went home at FL55. When I got back to Cambridge it had improved and I flew the ILS in excellent vis from about 2000 ft, with plenty of reserve.
I thought of this thread. I don't think there was anything that I did that involved significant risk, but I did kick myself a little that I hadn't bothered to plan the flight more thoroughly as IFR.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Bookworm - that is an interesting post.
I just wanted to add to my earlier posts that I am not intending to suggest that the type of flights recounted should be taken on lightly. I also agree that it is far far better the transition (if it proves necessary) should have been thought about and planned on the ground.
There is a lot to think about going IFR not least have I got enough fuel. DFC has some sound points.
To get back on track the point I have sort to make is given the potentially very dangerous situation the original poster set out I still consider it is a sound option for the IRed pilot. I also still think a mayday and declaring you are instrument rated etc etc is all a bit dramatic - yes having sorted yourself out in IMC above the MSA and thought about fuel, diversions, etc etc you may well find you pretty urgently need some help getting down safely - get help, make a Pan or even a Mayday if you need to BUT if you are IRed and current I still believe you should be able to safely fly the aircraft through the transition into stable SandL flight in IMC.
In Bookworm's case it would seem to me he had plently of options not least EGNX just to the west of track. Short of instrument failure the absolute key issue of course is can you safely climb, level and descend on instruments and once level be sufficiently comfortable to sort out the next steps (better still of course if you did that before climbing). Again I would refer back to the original poster - you are already in a dangerous situation with obscured rising ground ahead and possibly no way back without serious scud running!
Bookworm - out of interest why did you transition IFR and did you feel subsequently it was the correct action to have taken?
I just wanted to add to my earlier posts that I am not intending to suggest that the type of flights recounted should be taken on lightly. I also agree that it is far far better the transition (if it proves necessary) should have been thought about and planned on the ground.
There is a lot to think about going IFR not least have I got enough fuel. DFC has some sound points.
To get back on track the point I have sort to make is given the potentially very dangerous situation the original poster set out I still consider it is a sound option for the IRed pilot. I also still think a mayday and declaring you are instrument rated etc etc is all a bit dramatic - yes having sorted yourself out in IMC above the MSA and thought about fuel, diversions, etc etc you may well find you pretty urgently need some help getting down safely - get help, make a Pan or even a Mayday if you need to BUT if you are IRed and current I still believe you should be able to safely fly the aircraft through the transition into stable SandL flight in IMC.
In Bookworm's case it would seem to me he had plently of options not least EGNX just to the west of track. Short of instrument failure the absolute key issue of course is can you safely climb, level and descend on instruments and once level be sufficiently comfortable to sort out the next steps (better still of course if you did that before climbing). Again I would refer back to the original poster - you are already in a dangerous situation with obscured rising ground ahead and possibly no way back without serious scud running!
Bookworm - out of interest why did you transition IFR and did you feel subsequently it was the correct action to have taken?
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 16th June 2005 at 16:52.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Bookworm - out of interest why did you transition IFR and did you feel subsequently it was the correct action to have taken?
, or return to Cambridge immediately, which didn't really seem necessary. Had the IMC been much more convective, I would have thought twice about the entire flight, and probably have gone back to Cambridge rather than make the transition.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
However, by the aircraft giving a VFR position report at Lymington I suppose we all assume a commercial captain descending on the ILS would himself have sufficient situational awareness to realise this "plonker" is not a threat.
Yup, he would consider him an even bigger plonker for not being able to read a chart and realise that Limington is not within any zone
In all my time flying I have never heard a pilot state he has a current instrument rating - not once
You have not heard many Mayday calls then. Check ot CAP 413.
---------
Bookworm,
The met office enroute forecastissued at 0255 for that route was giving occasional cloud base of 1200ft AMSL and isolated base of 500ft AMSL. The cloud tops were forecast to be well above FL100...........Was it really a suitable day for VFR at the planning stage? (20/20 hindsight full on!)
TAFS are for a very small localised area round an aerodrome. The enroute forecast seems to have been spot on from what you say. So why not simply go IFR from the start?
-----------
Again I fear that the more often that people get away with something, the more they are lulled into thinking that actually it may not be that serious a situation after all.
Regards,
DFC
Yup, he would consider him an even bigger plonker for not being able to read a chart and realise that Limington is not within any zone
In all my time flying I have never heard a pilot state he has a current instrument rating - not once
You have not heard many Mayday calls then. Check ot CAP 413.
---------
Bookworm,
The met office enroute forecastissued at 0255 for that route was giving occasional cloud base of 1200ft AMSL and isolated base of 500ft AMSL. The cloud tops were forecast to be well above FL100...........Was it really a suitable day for VFR at the planning stage? (20/20 hindsight full on!)
TAFS are for a very small localised area round an aerodrome. The enroute forecast seems to have been spot on from what you say. So why not simply go IFR from the start?
-----------
Again I fear that the more often that people get away with something, the more they are lulled into thinking that actually it may not be that serious a situation after all.
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
The met office enroute forecastissued at 0255 for that route was giving occasional cloud base of 1200ft AMSL and isolated base of 500ft AMSL. The cloud tops were forecast to be well above FL100...........Was it really a suitable day for VFR at the planning stage? (20/20 hindsight full on!)
The flight was along the N/S boundary between two zones on the F215, which I think you're referring to. The worse of the two was:
GEN 12 KM 6/8SC 3000/5000, 7-8/8SCASAC 7000/15000
OCNL 6KM RA 2-5/8STSC 1200/5000, 8/8LYR 6000/17000
ISOL 3KM +RA 4-7/8 ST 500/1500, 8/8 LYR 2000/23000
I've had many decent VFR flights in conditions with similar forecasts. On departure the Cambridge ATIS gave 10+ FEW015 BKN025. I don't think it was unreasonable to expect to be able to remain VFR, given that I was heading towards rather better conditions.
The last METAR available close to destination before I departed was:
METAR EGCN 160950Z 19013KT 9999 FEW031 SCT037 BKN046 17/11 Q1016=
TAFS are for a very small localised area round an aerodrome.
So why not simply go IFR from the start?
I think you miss the point of my post a bit -- it was to illustrate that it does make sense to plan all such flights as IFR. I had, in essence, done so, and any surprise was rather mild. I don't believe I would have conducted the flight any differently, except that the departure would have been delayed by other IFR traffic. It was more a comment about mindset and expectation, and I think it supports some of the points you've made in the thread.