Are IMC/IR pilots safer?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 41
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are IMC/IR pilots safer?
Interesting reading various other threads and was wondering if the above statement is correct or not.
I suppose it depends on when the pilot wishes to fly. Someone who is happy flying in only close-to-perfect conditions would probably not benefit from doing their IR or IMC.
I read time and time again about accidents caused by flights going from VFR into IMC when they should not.
IMC would enable pilots to get clear of most of the weather and hence a safer one..?
Why do more people not do the IMC, from the people I have spoken to it is not that popular which surprises me living in the UK. I realise there was talk of ditching the IMC this might put some off.
How much does it cost here in the UK? It would be something I would be interested in getting as soon as I could.
Liam
I suppose it depends on when the pilot wishes to fly. Someone who is happy flying in only close-to-perfect conditions would probably not benefit from doing their IR or IMC.
I read time and time again about accidents caused by flights going from VFR into IMC when they should not.
IMC would enable pilots to get clear of most of the weather and hence a safer one..?
Why do more people not do the IMC, from the people I have spoken to it is not that popular which surprises me living in the UK. I realise there was talk of ditching the IMC this might put some off.
How much does it cost here in the UK? It would be something I would be interested in getting as soon as I could.
Liam
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam548
Yes a IMCR or IR Pilot is safer it has to be? Someone who uses an IMCR as per its original intention has a safeguard or insurance policy built into his skills incase he/she gets into conditions where VFR cannot be continued safely.
Where it becomes questionable is to what extent it is used. If an IMCR or infact an IR are used to fly in nearly all weather then the quality or experience of the IMCR/IR pilot comes into play as well as the aircraft he/she are flying.
But with a straight question the answer has to be Yes you will be safer having the extra training of instrument flying.
Whether flying VFR or IFR both can be safe as long as you fly within your own and the aircraft limits.
If you can afford it go for it
Pace
Yes a IMCR or IR Pilot is safer it has to be? Someone who uses an IMCR as per its original intention has a safeguard or insurance policy built into his skills incase he/she gets into conditions where VFR cannot be continued safely.
Where it becomes questionable is to what extent it is used. If an IMCR or infact an IR are used to fly in nearly all weather then the quality or experience of the IMCR/IR pilot comes into play as well as the aircraft he/she are flying.
But with a straight question the answer has to be Yes you will be safer having the extra training of instrument flying.
Whether flying VFR or IFR both can be safe as long as you fly within your own and the aircraft limits.
If you can afford it go for it
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it all depends.
On the one hand, any additional training you undertake, whether for a formal rating or qualification, or something informal like advanced handling or aerobatics, makes you a better pilot.
On the other hand, these additional ratings might enable (or even encourage) you to fly in more challenging aircraft and/or conditions which require more skill.
The safest pilot, IMHO, is one that is proficient, knows his limits and stays within them.
On the one hand, any additional training you undertake, whether for a formal rating or qualification, or something informal like advanced handling or aerobatics, makes you a better pilot.
On the other hand, these additional ratings might enable (or even encourage) you to fly in more challenging aircraft and/or conditions which require more skill.
The safest pilot, IMHO, is one that is proficient, knows his limits and stays within them.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think a straight answer to this Q is possible, because the mission profile changes (towards greater risk) once a more capable aircraft and additional training (and bits of paper) are acquired.
If you set off some plain-PPL pilots on a perfect-day VFR trip down the road, and similarly with a bunch of competent instrument pilots, I would jolly well hope the latter would be safer.
But that's not a useful comparison.
A better one would be to send the two groups from say Lydd to Trondheim (Norway). The VFR ones go VFR. The IFR ones go any way they want.
In that case, I would say the instrument group would have a much better survival rate, not because they are really smart but because the basic VFR-only training is really crap for any real-life long range VFR trips.
If you set off some plain-PPL pilots on a perfect-day VFR trip down the road, and similarly with a bunch of competent instrument pilots, I would jolly well hope the latter would be safer.
But that's not a useful comparison.
A better one would be to send the two groups from say Lydd to Trondheim (Norway). The VFR ones go VFR. The IFR ones go any way they want.
In that case, I would say the instrument group would have a much better survival rate, not because they are really smart but because the basic VFR-only training is really crap for any real-life long range VFR trips.
My IMC is long lapsed. I was not prepared to do enough instrument flying to remain current. ( i.e. enough to stay competent - not just to keep the rating) My present aircraft has no AH.
IMC/IR will only make you safer if you stay current, and have reliable instruments.
Flying a previous aircaft,while my IMC was current, after entering cloud, I had a rate 1 left turn, with the ball in the middle, and a right bank on the AH. The DI was known to be unreliable. I was lucky.
Look at the NTSB accidents, and see how many instrument rated pilots lose control in cloud.
If you have recent instrument experience, and reliable instruments, instrument flying will be safe. If not, stay visual - if necessary make a precautionary landing.
IMC/IR will only make you safer if you stay current, and have reliable instruments.
Flying a previous aircaft,while my IMC was current, after entering cloud, I had a rate 1 left turn, with the ball in the middle, and a right bank on the AH. The DI was known to be unreliable. I was lucky.
Look at the NTSB accidents, and see how many instrument rated pilots lose control in cloud.
If you have recent instrument experience, and reliable instruments, instrument flying will be safe. If not, stay visual - if necessary make a precautionary landing.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very difficult to answer that one. IR pilots will tell you they are safer than IMC who will in turn say they are better/safer than basic PPL holders.
Having an instrument rating of any sort will of course give you the upper hand in marginal or IMC but come on..... theres a lot more to being a safe pilot than a certificate allowing you to fly in or through the clag.
CFIT often involves IR rated pilots getting it wrong. I took an IMC to give me more scope whilst flying in Scotland but I know plenty of basic PPL`s who are far safer and better than I am because of their greater flying experience.
Being current on your type and keeping your skill levels updated regardless of ratings would I believe make all of us safer pilots.
Having an instrument rating of any sort will of course give you the upper hand in marginal or IMC but come on..... theres a lot more to being a safe pilot than a certificate allowing you to fly in or through the clag.
CFIT often involves IR rated pilots getting it wrong. I took an IMC to give me more scope whilst flying in Scotland but I know plenty of basic PPL`s who are far safer and better than I am because of their greater flying experience.
Being current on your type and keeping your skill levels updated regardless of ratings would I believe make all of us safer pilots.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main objective of an IMC rating is to teach the pilot a new set of skills.
These skills obviously encompass the components necessary to fly by sole reference to instruments and to navigate using radio aides.
These skills in themselves do not make the pilot any better, other than in respect of his ability to fly in instrument conditions. To that extent the pilot with an IMC rating is better equipped to fly on instruments and therefore far more capable of dealing with inadvertent IMC.
In reality, for a pilot who wishes to fly regularly and over distance in this country with a reasonable expectation of reaching his destination inadvertent IMC is an ever present risk. By this I mean that if a pilot has a deal of experience in reality he is likely to fly in more marginal VMC. As soon as you start operating on the margins, the closer you get to inadvertent IMC.
That aside, in all other respects there is no substitute for experience and recurrent training. It is inevitable that in 1,000 or more hours of flying you will experience a fair few “situations”. You will have developed an appreciation of your personal capabilities and you will at times have pushed these boundaries to varying degrees and survived.
If you were to offer me a pilot with 100 hours with or without an IMC, I would take the one with the IMC, if you were to offer me a pilot with 1,000 hours or the one with 100 hours and an IMC I would take the former every time assuming conditions were no worse than marginal VMC.
Offer me a pilot who was competent to fly aeros and I would rate that “qualification” as far more significant than an IMC rating once again assuming nothing worse than marginal VMC. In my experience, aside from CFIT, almost all other fatal accidents are ultimately caused by loss of control - an inability of the pilot to deal with a departure from controlled flight, notwithstanding the reason for that departure. A pilot who is competent to fly aeros will be more likely to retain control of the aircraft and it will take a great deal of experience to compensate for the skill learnt to fly an aircraft at or close to the limit of its envelope. Moreover a pilot with this training is less likely to depart from controlled flight in the first place.
These skills obviously encompass the components necessary to fly by sole reference to instruments and to navigate using radio aides.
These skills in themselves do not make the pilot any better, other than in respect of his ability to fly in instrument conditions. To that extent the pilot with an IMC rating is better equipped to fly on instruments and therefore far more capable of dealing with inadvertent IMC.
In reality, for a pilot who wishes to fly regularly and over distance in this country with a reasonable expectation of reaching his destination inadvertent IMC is an ever present risk. By this I mean that if a pilot has a deal of experience in reality he is likely to fly in more marginal VMC. As soon as you start operating on the margins, the closer you get to inadvertent IMC.
That aside, in all other respects there is no substitute for experience and recurrent training. It is inevitable that in 1,000 or more hours of flying you will experience a fair few “situations”. You will have developed an appreciation of your personal capabilities and you will at times have pushed these boundaries to varying degrees and survived.
If you were to offer me a pilot with 100 hours with or without an IMC, I would take the one with the IMC, if you were to offer me a pilot with 1,000 hours or the one with 100 hours and an IMC I would take the former every time assuming conditions were no worse than marginal VMC.
Offer me a pilot who was competent to fly aeros and I would rate that “qualification” as far more significant than an IMC rating once again assuming nothing worse than marginal VMC. In my experience, aside from CFIT, almost all other fatal accidents are ultimately caused by loss of control - an inability of the pilot to deal with a departure from controlled flight, notwithstanding the reason for that departure. A pilot who is competent to fly aeros will be more likely to retain control of the aircraft and it will take a great deal of experience to compensate for the skill learnt to fly an aircraft at or close to the limit of its envelope. Moreover a pilot with this training is less likely to depart from controlled flight in the first place.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience, aside from CFIT, almost all other fatal accidents are ultimately caused by loss of control - an inability of the pilot to deal with a departure from controlled flight,
If you define it as flying in IMC, a perfectly straight line, level altitude, into a mountain, (my definition) and preferably on autopilot while pouring themselves a cup of tea, then I agree with you
If I get killed one day that will probably be how it will happen... but I have EGPWS so hopefully not!!But loads of pilots get killed because they are in worsening VMC conditions, don't make crucial decisions early enough, cutting off their escape route, get trapped, and then they hit the ground, but probably not in much of a controlled flight.
I have found myself in such conditions just once. Flying into Switzerland from France, I thought the hills looked a lot taller than then map showed. The gap between them and the cloudbase was barely more than 700ft. We could almost see the markings on the cows (but they were European funded cows so above average size) and the vis was good, and cloudbase not lowering, and the clouds were not thick so an emergency climb would be OK, and turnback below cloud always possible, so I flew on. Eventually we landed at Grenchen, and I had a really good look at the chart. This stupid Swiss "ICAO chart" had a mixture of feet and metre elevations; apparently their military uses metres!
I am not sure that aerobatic expertise helps if one can barely see anything out of the window. Aerobatic flight, from the miniscule amount I know about it, is massively reliant on outside visual references, various angles to the visible horizon, etc.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have clearly explained myself poorly.
If the aircraft is reasonably under control, but collides with the ground (or a mountain, mast or anything similiar), the pilot has unfortunately become a culprit of controlling his aircraft into the scenery. The scenerio can occur in IMC, marginal VMC or even VMC.
Almost all other accidents occur because the pilot in the first instance has lost control. Accidents in the circuit are the usual culprit, be it stalling on the base turn, allowing the aircraft to become slow on final, to a botched attempt to turn back to the runway after an engine failure. Add in to these events loss of control following an engine failure en route, loss of control in turbulence, and show boating and you have covered almost all the scenerios, with the exception of loss of control in IMC.
I agree that the pilot being squeezed in the scud may lose control before the impact, but even in this situation I would suggest a pilot with aero experience is likely to hang on to control for longer, which might just enable his escape.
In the event of loss of control as outlined (as opposed to CFIT) a competant aerobatic pilot is in my opinion far more likely in the first instance to recognise control is about to be lost and in the second instance is far more likely to react correctly and sufficiently quickly to ensure the best chance of regaining control. Moreover, he is more likely to have the skills at his disposal to better cope with some of the scenarios that can lead to loss of control in the first place - for example a turn in a valley, to avoid the valley head which has become hidden in cloud, or a difficult approach into a forced landing site.
In short a pilot with aero training is far more likely to be aware of operating the aircraft close or beyond its flight envelope and how to regain that envelope in an emergency.
I would even go as far as suggesting that many pilots who regularly fly aeros (whether or not they have a formal instrument rating) are probably better than most at handling the aircraft in IMC, be it on partial panel or following loss of control in IMC for other reasons. The first time the top of the loop enters cloud is always an interesting event as is maintaining an aerobatic routine in VMC that most pilots would consider to be IMC!
If the aircraft is reasonably under control, but collides with the ground (or a mountain, mast or anything similiar), the pilot has unfortunately become a culprit of controlling his aircraft into the scenery. The scenerio can occur in IMC, marginal VMC or even VMC.
Almost all other accidents occur because the pilot in the first instance has lost control. Accidents in the circuit are the usual culprit, be it stalling on the base turn, allowing the aircraft to become slow on final, to a botched attempt to turn back to the runway after an engine failure. Add in to these events loss of control following an engine failure en route, loss of control in turbulence, and show boating and you have covered almost all the scenerios, with the exception of loss of control in IMC.
I agree that the pilot being squeezed in the scud may lose control before the impact, but even in this situation I would suggest a pilot with aero experience is likely to hang on to control for longer, which might just enable his escape.
In the event of loss of control as outlined (as opposed to CFIT) a competant aerobatic pilot is in my opinion far more likely in the first instance to recognise control is about to be lost and in the second instance is far more likely to react correctly and sufficiently quickly to ensure the best chance of regaining control. Moreover, he is more likely to have the skills at his disposal to better cope with some of the scenarios that can lead to loss of control in the first place - for example a turn in a valley, to avoid the valley head which has become hidden in cloud, or a difficult approach into a forced landing site.
In short a pilot with aero training is far more likely to be aware of operating the aircraft close or beyond its flight envelope and how to regain that envelope in an emergency.
I would even go as far as suggesting that many pilots who regularly fly aeros (whether or not they have a formal instrument rating) are probably better than most at handling the aircraft in IMC, be it on partial panel or following loss of control in IMC for other reasons. The first time the top of the loop enters cloud is always an interesting event as is maintaining an aerobatic routine in VMC that most pilots would consider to be IMC!
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 30th Oct 2008 at 23:56.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably that is why the FAA CPL includes the chandelle - a maximum-performance climbing 180 turn. I really enjoyed those At full power, starting at Va, the TB20 climbs 1500ft by the time it is finished.
At full power, starting at Va, the TB20 climbs 1500ft by the time it is finished.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first time the top of the loop enters cloud is always an interesting event as is maintaining an aerobatic routine in VMC that most pilots would consider to be IMC!
First time I inadvertently entered cloud in an aerobatics routine I was actually intending to do a half cuban. But when I had my sight of the horizon back after the top of the maneuver I was already 60 degree pitched down so a split second decision converted this in a full loop straight away.
There is another caveat why it is not a good idea to combine aeros with IMC and that is that after a moderately complex maneuver, all your gyro instruments have toppled and need some time (seconds to minutes) to recover. In case of the DI, it doesn't recover at all to the correct compass heading but needs to be reset manually. Depending on the exact internal workings, this may already apply to your AH after an inadvertent spin where you reach something like 45 degrees bank and 60 degrees pitch down. (The AH in our aerobatics plane has an additional degree of freedom so it is not representative for a typical IFR aircraft, an all other aircraft we have are prohibited from intentional spinning, so there is no way for me to know of verify what the exact limit would be. But even our AH is off by 30 degrees bank or so after a cuban eight - this was very unnerving to the 1800 hour B737 ATPL I flew aeros with a few weeks ago.)
I have no IMC/IR, but is this something that's being taught in an IMC/IR course when talking about unusual attitude recovery?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
I agree with you and would feel much safer in the aircraft of a high hour ppl with aerobatic quals rather than a low to medium hours pilot with IR or IMC.
I have also noted on a personal level that those with their own aircraft can also become complacent ie: "nobody knows my plane better" and other cliches you will have undoubtably heard before.
I am not suggesting that you r average pilot with say a thousand hours including an IR in his own plane is unsafe, but they do tend to have a certain confidence and cockieness that may catch them out one day.
I also know of a few glider pilots who regard themselves as far safer than any motorised pilot due to their better understanding of weather and blah blah blah.
Personally I get at least one flight a year with a cfi just to brush up and highlight any bad habits that may be forming.
I agree with you and would feel much safer in the aircraft of a high hour ppl with aerobatic quals rather than a low to medium hours pilot with IR or IMC.
I have also noted on a personal level that those with their own aircraft can also become complacent ie: "nobody knows my plane better" and other cliches you will have undoubtably heard before.
I am not suggesting that you r average pilot with say a thousand hours including an IR in his own plane is unsafe, but they do tend to have a certain confidence and cockieness that may catch them out one day.
I also know of a few glider pilots who regard themselves as far safer than any motorised pilot due to their better understanding of weather and blah blah blah.
Personally I get at least one flight a year with a cfi just to brush up and highlight any bad habits that may be forming.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, instrument skills make you safer. They make you fly more accurately, whether in cloud or not, and entering cloud is no issue. Also Aerobatic skills and advanced handling courses make you safer.
In fact the FAA recognise that ALL further training make a pilot safer, which is why their training is geared towards encouraging further training - something which Europe sadly doesn't seem to recognise as can be seen from their philosophy towards national ratings etc....The UK, with the IMCr did recognise this, but now thanks to the United States Of Europe we shall see this valuable rating disappear in the near future......
In fact the FAA recognise that ALL further training make a pilot safer, which is why their training is geared towards encouraging further training - something which Europe sadly doesn't seem to recognise as can be seen from their philosophy towards national ratings etc....The UK, with the IMCr did recognise this, but now thanks to the United States Of Europe we shall see this valuable rating disappear in the near future......
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that extra training makes you safer but going back to what Fuji pointed out, experience counts. A 100hr pilot with a shiny new IR qual is not nescessarily safer than a thousand+ hour ppl.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a gash pilot VMC is going to be a gash pilot with an IMCR. It is more down to the individual's attitude rather than the number of bits of paper. It is proper planning that IMHO is the best way of increasing safety.
However if you have the right approach to aviation, any further training and experience has to be beneficial.
However if you have the right approach to aviation, any further training and experience has to be beneficial.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having looked at Octobers AAIB bulletin (a totally invalid statistical sample) I see
2 Taxi accidents (broadly not looking where going)
4 departure accidents (3 departure stalls of which 2 fatal)
2 Landing accidents both involving inclement weather but both in VMC
Looking back at the other quite serious accidents, they have generally involved flight into IMC (or into terrain while possibly trying to avoid IMC) (some of them bizarrely have been current IR/IMC and in capable aircraft but still wound up planning to fly MVMC/IMC in mountains
). There were also two mid-airs and one IR pilot descending too early on an approach.
An IR/IMC doesn't help with the 8 in October or the mid-airs but does (when coupled with recent experience and an appropriate aircraft) with the 'continued VFR into IMC' which is probably the biggest fatal risk after takeoff accidents.
2 Taxi accidents (broadly not looking where going)
4 departure accidents (3 departure stalls of which 2 fatal)
2 Landing accidents both involving inclement weather but both in VMC
Looking back at the other quite serious accidents, they have generally involved flight into IMC (or into terrain while possibly trying to avoid IMC) (some of them bizarrely have been current IR/IMC and in capable aircraft but still wound up planning to fly MVMC/IMC in mountains
). There were also two mid-airs and one IR pilot descending too early on an approach.An IR/IMC doesn't help with the 8 in October or the mid-airs but does (when coupled with recent experience and an appropriate aircraft) with the 'continued VFR into IMC' which is probably the biggest fatal risk after takeoff accidents.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some of them bizarrely have been current IR/IMC and in capable aircraft but still wound up planning to fly MVMC/IMC in mountains
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 100hr pilot with a shiny new IR qual is not nescessarily safer than a thousand+ hour ppl.