UK PA-30 crash in France

[mm_flynn]

421,


A good clean summary. I think there are three more points around class G operations. And it is these points that make the UK 'different'.

1. most countries that allow IFR in Class G require either two way radio communications to be maintained and/or an IFR flight plan to have been filed. The UK requires neither.
2. most countries have limited their PPL licence privileges to VFR flight only (that is you can not operate IFR in VMC even in uncontrolled airspace - so in the US should fly at a level +500 feet but not at an even thousand), but the UK specifically allows a PPL to fly in accordance with IFR
3. finally, the UK has a set of restrictions and opportunities that means a PPL in class G can not fly in some VMC (when above an undercast or when vis is betwwen 1.5 KM and 3KM amongst others) but can fly in some IMC conditions (e.g. Where VMC cloud separation can not be maintained)

[bookworm]

3. All flight in IMC needs to be under IFR.
4. In 2 and 3, the pilot needs an instrument qualification

Bzzzzzzzzzzt!

[Contacttower]

421 sums it up nicely I think. The only thing I'd add is that in the UK technically in order to be IFR compliant in G one has to be flying correct level for magnetic track and be 1000ft above obstacles 5nm either side of track except when below 3000ft and in sight of the surface...I believe.

[Fuji Abound]

421c yours is the rather boring often trotted out and terribly pc explanation, if you like it and it works for you that is fine by me.

After all the times i have read it here and elsewhere it bores me to tears - sorry and all that.

Now the poster was obviously far more interested in understanding the differences between the uk and elsewhere, and our understanding is different.

What would i change. Well personally i am quite happy with ifr ocas either in vmc or imc. I think in the uk we have it about right. If someone wants to fly from manston to newquay entirely ocas in imc thats fine by me. Try that route in france ocas under ifr in imc and you may find your explanation falters.

Oh and you may feel my explanation is confusing and you are entitled to your opinion but my explanation was not incorrect and it was a different slant on an old chestnut, sorry if it confused you though.

[IO540]

Political correctness has no place in discussing accidents.

One can understand PC if coming from somebody who is regularly involved in meeting regulatory body representatives, and we all know they do read the pilot forums, and I know for a fact that for the most part they know exactly who is who on here.

Such representative work is necessary and is valuable to GA, somebody has to do it, and those that do it are invariably not paid for it. But I don't do anything like that; I am a lone operator with my own views which I stand by otherwise I would not write them. If somebody wants to wince (I had to look it up) they are welcome to it. This is one reason I don't get involved in any GA organisations.

I am perfectly happy flying in IMC, on my own, non-radio. The technology to avoid terrain has been around for quite a while, is dirt cheap, and if somebody chooses to not use it, it's their choice. I just feel sorry for the passengers (often children) who die, having trusted the pilot to do all the due diligence. It is a pretty common theme in fatal accidents; I always try to "take home" something from a mistake somebody else has made while wiping out most of his family, but in most cases it is hard to dig out something obviously worthwhile. Which is not to say I won't one day get killed flying, but the cause will probably be something different from the usual stuff.

[421C]

I agree with everything in your post above. The thing I disagreed with is
"Penetration of IMC which is unauthorised in that particular airspace is virtually irrelevant to safety if the pilot is instrument capable and has sufficient resources to be aware of his obstacle clearance in all phases of flight."
I am still going to disagree with it. It doesn't help to personalise my context or motive or call it 'political correctness'. It's a statement I think is silly, for all the obvious reasons. You have your views, I have mine. I am not going to ascribe motives to your views, please don't to mine. Or is it that someone with different views must have an "agenda"?

Political correctness has no place in discussing accidents.

I find it odd, almost extraordinary, that a "conforming" view of IFR should be labelled "political correctness". The very reason I raise the subject is because this is an accident thread. I find the endless smilies and nudge-nudge wink-wink references to "VFR" etc etc on any thread related to IFR pretty depressing. A dominant theme in the CFIT and IFR accidents I read is "ad hoc" or "non-conforming" flight in IMC. People don't have accidents very often departing on a SID, flying an airway, arriving on a STAR and landing off an approach within minima. "Conforming" IFR works. Of course, sometimes one needs to use off-route IFR. But I still think trying to conform as best one can is better advice than doing non-conforming IFR "properly", whatever that is.

One thing we are in agreement over is terrain awareness/alerting equipment. It's impossible to know for sure, but I think the great majority of GA CFITs happen to aircraft without terrain awareness/alerting. Of course, a few years ago, this would have been a bit meaningless, since so few light aircraft had the kit. Today, I have to think a significant % of piston aircraft used for IFR have some form of terrain alerting - and I am not sure I've ever read a CFIT report involving such an aircraft. I guess the need for TAWS is a bit non-intuitive, because you can spend 99% of your time in IMC thousands of feet above any terrain within 50nm, let alone 1000'/5nm, when flying in the south of England or northern Europe. But the holes in the cheese line up often enough for (?) one or two pilots every year that the investment has to be worthwhile. Of course, the technology is not idiot proof and there is the risk that someone uses it to take chances they wouldn't take without TAWS, but in the CFIT reports I've read in the last few years, you have to think even a simple portable with graphic terrain alerting would have had a >50%(?) chance of averting the accident.

[Fuji Abound]

421C - I also find your attitude to IMC odd, and my comment is personalised only because I am commenting on the view you express.

You seem to rely far too much on the ground base infra structure in order to conduct a flight in IMC for my liking.

[IO540]

Of course, sometimes one needs to use off-route IFR.

Quite... and that's where most GA people hit things.

But I still think trying to conform as best one can is better advice than doing non-conforming IFR "properly", whatever that is.

"Conform as best" how, and to what?

Obviously if you make sure everybody remains VMC and with >10k vis, nobody is ever going to do a CFIT. But that's not how the world works, OCAS.

Why is it safe for me to fly in IMC for 50nm in the UK while waiting for London Info to get me onto London Control for the IFR clearance to climb into CAS (and hopefully to VMC on top), when it is not safe for me to do the equivalent thing in say Germany, where IFR in Class G is apparently illegal?

If I ever meet a German IR holder who says he has never flown in IMC in German Class G, I am going to fall over. If this ban on IFR in Class G was observed strictly, operations from non-IFR airports would grind to a halt, because you would more or less need CAVOK conditions. It's a joke.

[421C]

421C - I also find your attitude to IMC odd, and my comment is personalised only because I am commenting on the view you express.

You seem to rely far too much on the ground base infra structure in order to conduct a flight in IMC for my liking.

Sorry Fuji, I should have made it clear that my reply above was to IO540. I take nothing personal in our exchange. I stand by my comments on your post. I guess we find each others' views odd. Happy to leave it at that.

[mm_flynn]

The thread has moved a long way from a useful 'accident learning' thread, which is disappointing. Of all the weather related accidents we have discussed, this is one where I can see the holes in the cheese lining up for myself, and quite a number of IFR rated pilots.

A potential scenario could be

1. A current IFR Rated pilot in a well equipped aircraft
2. Probably on the VFR part of a Z plan
3. Flying in increasingly marginal VMC (clear of clouds, visual with the sea below in haze)
4. Routing on a low level VFR transit route while waiting for his IFR clearance to climb into the TMA
5. probably 900 ft above the terrain (max level on the route is 1000 AGL) into the sun with an effective horizontal vis of say 1.5 miles (legal VMC)
6. Now viz drops to slightly less than VMC and we have the accidental move from VFR/VMC into VFR/IMC the linked paper describes as a key element of recent CFIT accidents)
7. This leaves say 20 seconds from the time the terrain comes out of the murk until impact.

The scenario then is - A pilot who thinks he knows where he is on a VFR route and that he has adequate visibility until too late. The essential point of the linked paper, and so many other analysis, is the decision to shift to IFR needs to be done in good time so the process is VMC/VFR -> VMC/IFR - >IMC/IFR with no room to be in the 'VFR'/IMC box.

I can easily imagine the dilemma facing a pilot in contact with ATC told to standby for his climb in increasing marginal VMC (but still OK, I think?). Do you decide to wait another minute or declare an emergency and climb, or declare and emergency and turn off the VFR route to the sea, through the approach/departure path of a busy international airport.

For me this is the most interesting aspect, how do we quickly make these decisions (correctly) and what can we do to help reduce the probability of needing to make these decisions. (TAWS has already been mentioned - and at its current cost, I would not fly IFR without)

[what next]

If I ever meet a German IR holder who says he has never flown in IMC in German Class G, I am going to fall over. If this ban on IFR in Class G was observed strictly, operations from non-IFR airports would grind to a halt, because you would more or less need CAVOK conditions. It's a joke.

The magic word here (in Germany I mean) is _separation_. You are only allowed to fly on instruments alone, where separation can be provided. Either visually or by radar. In IMC this can obviously only be by radar and there is no (guaranteed) radar coverage in class G airspace. We have a very large number of aerodromes in Germany, just look how many pages there are in the "Aiport Directory" section of Jeppesen compared to other countries (which does not even list the countless glider and microlight sites) and at times a high traffic density at low level as well. Flying through this sort of airspace in and out of clouds is not a safe way of flying, therefore I perfectly understand our regulations.

Regarding your "...who says he has never flown in IMC in German Class G...", well yes, there are always people who stick to the rules and those who don't. Just like you will not find a driver who has never busted a speed limit. But as others have said, those who never flew in IMC at low level have never hit terrain or obstacles...

And regarding the need of CAVOK in order to operate IFR from uncontrolled airfields, this is simply not true. Within class G airspace, all you need 1.5km visibility and be able to stay clear of clouds. For the segment between the lower bounds of class E airspace and the minimum radar vectoring altitude from where the IFR flight starts, reduced minima apply that are identical to class G minima. Which means that from most uncontrolled airfields in Germany you can legally depart with a Z flightplan when you have 1500m visibilty, few in 500ft, scattered in 1500ft and broken in 3000ft. Which is completely different from CAVOK...

Happy landings,
max

[bookworm]

I am perfectly happy flying in IMC, on my own, non-radio.

is a long way from

Penetration of IMC which is unauthorised in that particular airspace is virtually irrelevant to safety if the pilot is instrument capable and has sufficient resources to be aware of his obstacle clearance in all phases of flight.

It's one thing to point out, correctly, that the CFIT risk may be more significant than the mid-air collision risk during certain phases of flight, including a low-level transition from VFR to IFR. It's quite another to dismiss the mid-air collision risk entirely. Air Traffic Control, controlled airspace, and the requirement for clearances therein, are not "irrelevant to safety".

[421C]

"Conform as best" how, and to what?

Obviously if you make sure everybody remains VMC and with >10k vis, nobody is ever going to do a CFIT. But that's not how the world works, OCAS.

It's not what I was saying. I was not saying never fly IFR OCAS. It's really simple, to the point that I wonder how we can be debating it. "Conforming" means conforming to VFR or IFR, and avoiding any middle-ground grey-zone of deteriorating weather without having fully established IFR. OCAS, you have to work harder on 'fully establishing' IFR because you are often not on a published route and often without radar service, and your navigation and altimetry discipline needs to be more alert and cautious.

If, in the "real world", this means the inconvenience of not departing, diverting, holding, 180-ing back into VMC, whatever then so be it. It is one thing to be annoyed about the "system". I find it as annoying as you do that the availability of GA airports with instrument procedures and low-level routes suitable for light aircraft is as poor as it is in Europe. But if the 'work arounds' take you into a grey zone of quasi VFR-into-IMC then CFIT accidents are the result.

Why is it safe for me to fly in IMC for 50nm in the UK while waiting for London Info to get me onto London Control for the IFR clearance to climb into CAS (and hopefully to VMC on top), when it is not safe for me to do the equivalent thing in say Germany, where IFR in Class G is apparently illegal?

If I ever meet a German IR holder who says he has never flown in IMC in German Class G, I am going to fall over. If this ban on IFR in Class G was observed strictly, operations from non-IFR airports would grind to a halt, because you would more or less need CAVOK conditions. It's a joke.

These are arguments about points I haven't made, so I am not sure what to reply. Ultimately, IFR and VFR are rules. They are not invariant across countries. My point is that the best way to avoid the general cause of the kind of accident we are discussing in this thread (obviously I don't know the specific cause) is to conform to the VFR or IFR rules of the airspace you're in and to avoid the temptation to fly VFR-in-quotation-marks or whatever.

[IO540]

The thread has moved a long way from a useful 'accident learning' thread, which is disappointing

It's a bit frustrating as there are clearly people reading this and the "other" forum who heard the radio exchanges, but who are now saying nothing.

Until certain things are clarified, we cannot even be sure the pilot was asking for an IFR clearance. All we have is this one-liner

forward vis was 0 due to the mist. Jimaskedto climb and change airways joining point and was asked to stand by.

He may have been on a 100% VFR flight. Look at how many UK PPLs call the French Class E "airways". It is also possible this pilot did not have a JAA ME IR.

For me this is the most interesting aspect, how do we quickly make these decisions (correctly) and what can we do to help reduce the probability of needing to make these decisions.

The issue I see is that if you are flying OCAS and without a radar vectoring service, you are on your own (legally and practically) when it comes to obstacle clearance, so the only "proper" answer is to always maintain VMC.

Yet we must agree this is not feasible, in a situation where, post-departure from a non-IFR airport, you need to collect an IFR clearance at some stage. Even if you could get one on the phone, that still doesn't solve the situation unless you are tracking a published SID (which you won't be doing in any non-IFR airport scenario).

So no means of clearance delivery is going to make the issue go away entirely.

I rarely if ever combine low level sightseeing with a Eurocontrol-filed IFR flight, so I work out (pre-departure) which way to fly and during this time I will be working furiously to collect the IFR clearance. I have not yet had a situation where was in IMC among significant terrain (the southern UK doesn't exactly count) while waiting for the clearance, but I can imagine a departure from Locarno into say OVC020, without a topo moving map, would be interesting... I probably wouldn't do such a flight because of the possibility of losing GPS reception in between the ~ 9000ft mountains.

For a coastal airport, such as in this accident, a climb over the sea has to be the safe way (or perhaps just flying around at 900ft, on autopilot, until you get the IFR clearance) but for some reason it was not done - presumably because the pilot was not aware of the terrain and/or did not have a GPS moving map showing him where he was.

An apparently last-minute (relative to how long ATC might be reasonably expected to take to come up with it) decision to ask for an IFR clearance may be be a common thread in CFITs, but I don't know what one can do about that, short of binning the sightseeing option totally and going straight for a max-performance climb on a carefully preplanned track (which is what I do).

I say this because the time to get the IFR clearance can vary massively. I don't recall if I posted about a case in Greece but I flew a very long distance there before I got it, apparently due to sleepy controllers, and the terrain below was hills to ~ 5000ft so quite significant. Vis was very poor. And even then it was apparent that they had never found my flight plan, and the terminology used did not make it clear they had me on radar..... In N Europe I've had the clearance in anything from an immediate returned radio call (Lille Radar IIRC) to half an hour (London Info / London Control) to absolutely never (e.g. flying N to S across the UK and trying to get a route above a load of cumulus, say FL100+, with any entry into Class A being deliberately frustrated by Manchester Control asking for airways joining points in a manner ensuring that none of my choices would meet their requirements).

And we all know of cases where arriving GA traffic gets dumped by London Control 50-100nm before the destination, forcing it to hack under the LTMA at 2400ft etc. This is really no different to a pilot doing the same distance at the start of the flight, in solid IMC. The reason the "system" gets away with it is because southern UK is mostly pretty flat. and somebody happy to fly IMC at 2400ft without any service is going to be fine.

So I think there is no great solution, apart from a GPS which shows you where you are on a terrain-depicting map.

But it may be relevant to mention that all of the recently discussed "big" accidents here involved flights which were a mixture of extensive low level flying (probably for sightseeing) and IFR.

Very few GA CFITs seem to happen on straight IFR flights. I recall reading about a TB20 crash some years ago where the pilot turned left instead of right, on a SID, into terrain, but this is very rare.

Flying through this sort of airspace in and out of clouds is not a safe way of flying, therefore I perfectly understand our regulations.

Is that supported by mid-air statistics? I don't think so. Emotionally it is very powerful but the numbers never prop it up.

those who never flew in IMC at low level have never hit terrain or obstacles...

and neither have those who never flew

Actually there have been lots of CFITs in "legal VMC" too, in poor vis.

Which means that from most uncontrolled airfields in Germany you can legally depart with a Z flightplan when you have 1500m visibilty, few in 500ft, scattered in 1500ft and broken in 3000ft. Which is completely different from CAVOK...

OK, but that presumably assumes that you avoid all the FEW bits and avoid all the SCT bits and avoid all the BKN bits, if there is terrain above 3000ft, else you have to just sit there orbiting. Germany has plenty of bits > 3000ft.

It's one thing to point out, correctly, that the CFIT risk may be more significant than the mid-air collision risk during certain phases of flight, including a low-level transition from VFR to IFR. It's quite another to dismiss the mid-air collision risk entirely.

I recall you having very extensively posted on this topic, saying that mid-airs are so rare.

And they are. Terrain is orders of magnitude more dangerous than other traffic. It's a lot bigger, there is a lot more of it, and it hangs around in the same spot for a long time

By far the biggest reason we have any mid-air stats at all is because the way aviation works, a lot of traffic is concentrated into small areas.

[bookworm]

I recall you having very extensively posted on this topic, saying that mid-airs are so rare.

And they are. Terrain is orders of magnitude more dangerous than other traffic. It's a lot bigger, there is a lot more of it, and it hangs around in the same spot for a long time

By far the biggest reason we have any mid-air stats at all is because the way aviation works, a lot of traffic is concentrated into small areas.

I have indeed suggested that the risk of random collision in IMC in low traffic density airspace is smaller than is often assumed. I don't remember suggesting that "unauthorised" penetration of IMC in the Nice TMA falls into the same category. In higher density airspace, ATM is indeed necessary to bring the collision risks down to an acceptable level. Part of ATM is IFR flights in controlled airspace obtaining and conforming to a clearance.

[IO540]

I don't think I ever suggested that one should bust CAS while awaiting an IFR clearance. That would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

Somebody on Flyer suggested that.

[Fuji Abound]

Conforming" means conforming to VFR or IFR, and avoiding any middle-ground grey-zone of deteriorating weather without having fully established IFR. OCAS, you have to work harder on 'fully establishing' IFR because you are often not on a published route and often without radar service, and your navigation and altimetry discipline needs to be more alert and cautious.

What do you mean by conforming?

If you are flying a route in an out of cloud ocas how are you going to conform?

[what next]

I don't think I ever suggested that one should bust CAS while awaiting an IFR clearance. That would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

Statistically speaking, you should be quite safe doing that. In CAS, all traffic is separated both horizontally and vertically by wide margins of safety, so passing randomly through it is like a neutrino fling through a crystal lattice... the chances of hitting something are very low. Not so in uncontrolled airspace where all traffic is squeezed into a thin layer of airspace, sometimes only 1000ft thick and pilots tend to route (for whatever reason?) via neuralgic points like VORS and reporting points instead of taking the straight line from A to B. Yet you are right, not many (if any) collisions have happened between instrument traffic in uncontrolled airspace.

[IO540]

It might be safe but it is very very poor form. In the UK, we have not yet had a GA/jet mid-air, which is pretty amazing considering how many people bust CAS and how many fly below CAS without Mode C, when ATC has to assume that a non-C target "must be" below CAS.

The worst thing would be if the GA aircraft was N-reg

I was thinking about your "few in 500ft, scattered in 1500ft and broken in 3000ft" departure case. There, you might end up circling around, between layers, doing your best to avoid popping into cloud, while waiting for the IFR clearance. It just doesn't seem very practical to me. I bet a German pilot is just going to fly off straight into IMC (assuming non-hazardous conditions of course) on approximately his filed route, which is exactly what people do here in the UK and legally so. But you level off below the base of CAS, in all cases.

[what next]

I was thinking about your "few in 500ft, scattered in 1500ft and broken in 3000ft" departure case. There, you might end up circling around, between layers, doing your best to avoid popping into cloud, while waiting for the IFR clearance.

There is no need to wait for your clearance (in Germany again)! When departing from a VFR only field with an IFR flightplan (Z plan) the radio operator of the field will get your clearance by phone once you tell him you are ready for start-up. And when the radar sector overhead can accept you, they phone the airfield and tell them to release you. When airborne ATC already expect you and all you have to do is climb to MRVA as quick as you can. Personally, I fly around every single cloud in this phase because I owe it to the people (up to 10) that I carry on board to do everything possible for their safety.
Mind you, there are over 20,000 gliders in Germany and on some busy summer weekends 80 percent of them can be airborne at the same time. Anywhere between ground level and 10.000ft. Below clouds, beside clouds, above clouds. See and be seen is vital.

It just doesn't seem very practical to me. I bet a German pilot is just going to fly off straight into IMC (assuming non-hazardous conditions of course) on approximately his filed route, which is exactly what people do here in the UK and legally so. But you level off below the base of CAS, in all cases.

As I wrote above, it's rather the contrary here. You aim straight for CAS (because that's where big brother will be watching over you) without leveling off anywhere - but on the way there, you try to be seen as much as possible and avoid clouds like the devil avoids holy water...

But you are right again when other countries are concerned, especially in France and the UK it can take ages until you get your clearance. My record is a flight departing Stapleford where finally a mercyful belgian controller gave us our clearance well inland from Oostend. We had to do the whole channel crossing at 1.000ft in IMC - unthinkable here!