Declaring an emergency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Declaring an emergency
Ok, another question I've wondered about for a while!
Reading the accident reports in Flyer and Today's Pilot, and reading on the web, I've often noticed accidents which seem to have been avoidable, or at least given the pilot a better chance, if they had of asked for help earlier. Instead they often seem to leave asking for help, and God forbid, declaring an emergency, until the last possible moment.
I've been wondering is this due to some form of investigation or paperwork that goes on afterwards?
Lets look at the following situations.
1. No failure of the pilot or aircraft. eg. an unforcast deteriation of weather. Or a runway blocking incident at both the destination and the alternative aerodrome, leaving just enough fuel to make another aerdrome. However plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage
2. There was poor planning on behalf of the pilot. eg. took off without proper checking of weater forecast, and there was a deteriation below vfr, or poor fuel planning. However plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.
3. There is a mechanical problem, but not a catastrophic problem. eg. rough running engine, or some damage to a control surface. However the plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.
4. The is a major problem, such as a total engine failure. However the plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.
5. An inflight emergency of some kind happened, and was declared. The plane lands, but there is some sort of jury/damage.
In all of these situations I'm assuming the pilot does declare an emergency. Given that, then what paper work or investigation arises from declaring that emergency?
Thanks for any info. Always looking to expand my knowledge!
Regards,
dp
Edited to make the question more obvious!
Edited to clarify case 5
Reading the accident reports in Flyer and Today's Pilot, and reading on the web, I've often noticed accidents which seem to have been avoidable, or at least given the pilot a better chance, if they had of asked for help earlier. Instead they often seem to leave asking for help, and God forbid, declaring an emergency, until the last possible moment.
I've been wondering is this due to some form of investigation or paperwork that goes on afterwards?
Lets look at the following situations.
1. No failure of the pilot or aircraft. eg. an unforcast deteriation of weather. Or a runway blocking incident at both the destination and the alternative aerodrome, leaving just enough fuel to make another aerdrome. However plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage
2. There was poor planning on behalf of the pilot. eg. took off without proper checking of weater forecast, and there was a deteriation below vfr, or poor fuel planning. However plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.
3. There is a mechanical problem, but not a catastrophic problem. eg. rough running engine, or some damage to a control surface. However the plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.
4. The is a major problem, such as a total engine failure. However the plane lands safely, and there is no injury or damage.
5. An inflight emergency of some kind happened, and was declared. The plane lands, but there is some sort of jury/damage.
In all of these situations I'm assuming the pilot does declare an emergency. Given that, then what paper work or investigation arises from declaring that emergency?
Thanks for any info. Always looking to expand my knowledge!
Regards,
dp
Edited to make the question more obvious!
Edited to clarify case 5
Last edited by dublinpilot; 8th Aug 2003 at 01:51.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublinpilot
I asked a similar question here recently which elucidated the reponse that there is no such thing as a 'fuel emergency' in the UK, just Pan or Mayday.
As to the paperwork, MOR's were mentioned but no-one commented from a specifically GA point of view, so it would be interesting to know what happens in reality.
I am sure that many (most?) GA pilots would be reluctant to call Mayday out of fear of possible consequences, so perhaps a better knowledge of what follows such a call would help pilots make the decision earlier.
I asked a similar question here recently which elucidated the reponse that there is no such thing as a 'fuel emergency' in the UK, just Pan or Mayday.
As to the paperwork, MOR's were mentioned but no-one commented from a specifically GA point of view, so it would be interesting to know what happens in reality.
I am sure that many (most?) GA pilots would be reluctant to call Mayday out of fear of possible consequences, so perhaps a better knowledge of what follows such a call would help pilots make the decision earlier.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that many (most?) GA pilots would be reluctant to call Mayday out of fear of possible consequences
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This should turn into a good one!
Essentially the 'system' is highly dependent on either people 'fessing up' or offical bodies reporting.
So for 1,2 and 3 unless the pilot reports it - no action.
If the pilot reports 4 (which the rules state he should), nice letter from CAA - if anything.
If the pilot, or someone else reports 5, a less polite letter from the CAA. Having being involved directly in one (my heavy landing) and indirectly in two others I have to say they were sensible and moderate.
None warranted enforcement action (there was no direct rule breach in any of them), and none was taken. In many ways my direct experience of the system would suggest it works well. But then the situations you are talking about are all 'accidents' or 'near misses'. If you include nearly running out of fuel then recent CAA policy has been to prosecute. So 'fessing up' to that one might be inadvisable, ditto flying under bridges to avoid birds and breaching Special Branch requirements and any of a host of others.
Given the possibility of self incrimination for some of these things there is a pretty natural tendency to keep quiet. Perhaps the question is "can you think of a situation where asking for help early actually helps"
For being lost - probably the obvious one. For anything else - I'm really not sure. I've had a couple of incidents - heavy landing - only knew about it when it happened. 3 cylinders firing after a failure - no help just gave me something else to think about and respond to whilst I nursed the aircraft to the nearest runway. Loss of power in the climbout - no help the aircraft had to be flown back into a difficult strip, that I managed - much more might have been too much.
The one I know of where it could have helped, was where someone lost their nosewheel at my strip, managed to go around and then had to land back somewhere on a hard runway. They spent 30 minutes arguing with two airfields before they got permission from one to land there!!!!! They would probably been better off flying direct to the nearest and then yelling for the fire truck.
Essentially the 'system' is highly dependent on either people 'fessing up' or offical bodies reporting.
So for 1,2 and 3 unless the pilot reports it - no action.
If the pilot reports 4 (which the rules state he should), nice letter from CAA - if anything.
If the pilot, or someone else reports 5, a less polite letter from the CAA. Having being involved directly in one (my heavy landing) and indirectly in two others I have to say they were sensible and moderate.
None warranted enforcement action (there was no direct rule breach in any of them), and none was taken. In many ways my direct experience of the system would suggest it works well. But then the situations you are talking about are all 'accidents' or 'near misses'. If you include nearly running out of fuel then recent CAA policy has been to prosecute. So 'fessing up' to that one might be inadvisable, ditto flying under bridges to avoid birds and breaching Special Branch requirements and any of a host of others.
Given the possibility of self incrimination for some of these things there is a pretty natural tendency to keep quiet. Perhaps the question is "can you think of a situation where asking for help early actually helps"
For being lost - probably the obvious one. For anything else - I'm really not sure. I've had a couple of incidents - heavy landing - only knew about it when it happened. 3 cylinders firing after a failure - no help just gave me something else to think about and respond to whilst I nursed the aircraft to the nearest runway. Loss of power in the climbout - no help the aircraft had to be flown back into a difficult strip, that I managed - much more might have been too much.
The one I know of where it could have helped, was where someone lost their nosewheel at my strip, managed to go around and then had to land back somewhere on a hard runway. They spent 30 minutes arguing with two airfields before they got permission from one to land there!!!!! They would probably been better off flying direct to the nearest and then yelling for the fire truck.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points here.
First of all, there is no investigation or paperwork following an emergency. There is paperwork following an accident - but the paperwork will be the same whether you declare an emergency or not. Unless you avoid the accident by asking for help, of course, in which case the paperwork requirement goes away!
In your 5 scenarios, case 5 is, IMHO, different to the others. I'm assuming that what you mean is that there was nothing wrong, except that the pilot c0cked up the landing and there was some damage? Not much point declaring an emergency in this case - the damage is already done before you've had a chance!
As for the others, if you're short of fuel, or short of options, or there's a mechanical problem, then it's either Mayday or Pan Pan, depending how urgent the problem is. Simple.
I'm interested that in two of your options you mention weather problems. Weather problems don't automatically create an emergency situation.
Example: you take off and fly towards a cold front. You hope to reach your destination before you reach the start of the frontal weather. About 20 miles from your destination, you encounter heavy rain, and turn around. Is this an emergency? No - IMHO, if the weather behind you is clear, and you have plenty of fuel left, then you have plenty of options, so no need to bother anyone else. Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't tell anyone - I'd tell anyone I was talking to. If I was receiving a LARS or FIS, I'd tell the controller I was diverting. On contacting my diversion field, I'd tell them I'm a (for example) "PA28, from A to B, diverting to you due weather". This at least explains why you're changing course, why you haven't phoned for PPR, why you maybe don't have the airfield diagram to hand - but there's no need for special priority, no need for a fire truck to meet you, and no need to declare an emergency.
Example 2: you take off and stay below the overcast layer of clouds. You cross a range of hills, and then encounter bad weather ahead. You turn around, only to find that the clouds bases have lowered, and you can't get back across the range of hills that you passed earlier. This quite possibly is an emergency. Right now, I want all the help I can get. I want to know if there's a farm-strip that's not shown on my chart, or if another pilot has just reported a gap in the clouds a few miles away. If I'm running low on fuel or if the clouds are getting lower, then I will have to land somewhere very soon, even if it's off airport. With the cloud-base lowering, the chances are I'm not going to want to hang around extending downwind in a 1000' circuit while some twin is 4 miles out on the ILS - I want to be on the ground, and I want to be on the ground asap.
At least that's my personal interpretation - don't know if everyone else will agree!
FFF
-----------
First of all, there is no investigation or paperwork following an emergency. There is paperwork following an accident - but the paperwork will be the same whether you declare an emergency or not. Unless you avoid the accident by asking for help, of course, in which case the paperwork requirement goes away!
In your 5 scenarios, case 5 is, IMHO, different to the others. I'm assuming that what you mean is that there was nothing wrong, except that the pilot c0cked up the landing and there was some damage? Not much point declaring an emergency in this case - the damage is already done before you've had a chance!
As for the others, if you're short of fuel, or short of options, or there's a mechanical problem, then it's either Mayday or Pan Pan, depending how urgent the problem is. Simple.
I'm interested that in two of your options you mention weather problems. Weather problems don't automatically create an emergency situation.
Example: you take off and fly towards a cold front. You hope to reach your destination before you reach the start of the frontal weather. About 20 miles from your destination, you encounter heavy rain, and turn around. Is this an emergency? No - IMHO, if the weather behind you is clear, and you have plenty of fuel left, then you have plenty of options, so no need to bother anyone else. Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't tell anyone - I'd tell anyone I was talking to. If I was receiving a LARS or FIS, I'd tell the controller I was diverting. On contacting my diversion field, I'd tell them I'm a (for example) "PA28, from A to B, diverting to you due weather". This at least explains why you're changing course, why you haven't phoned for PPR, why you maybe don't have the airfield diagram to hand - but there's no need for special priority, no need for a fire truck to meet you, and no need to declare an emergency.
Example 2: you take off and stay below the overcast layer of clouds. You cross a range of hills, and then encounter bad weather ahead. You turn around, only to find that the clouds bases have lowered, and you can't get back across the range of hills that you passed earlier. This quite possibly is an emergency. Right now, I want all the help I can get. I want to know if there's a farm-strip that's not shown on my chart, or if another pilot has just reported a gap in the clouds a few miles away. If I'm running low on fuel or if the clouds are getting lower, then I will have to land somewhere very soon, even if it's off airport. With the cloud-base lowering, the chances are I'm not going to want to hang around extending downwind in a 1000' circuit while some twin is 4 miles out on the ILS - I want to be on the ground, and I want to be on the ground asap.
At least that's my personal interpretation - don't know if everyone else will agree!
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingForFun
I don't have the experience of actual cases to add to this thread, but your Example #2 is a pretty serious example of how careful a PPL-only pilot has to be with the TAFs. No flying if the forecast cloudbase is anywhere near the MSA. In that situation I would call 121.5 immediately I established there is no suitable airfield close.
Of course, getting the IMCR/IR and keeping current is the proper way to do this
But even then one cannot fly a non-deiced plane if the freezing level is at/below the MSA unless the clouds are scattered or better...
You could come up with lots of scenarios like this which a pilot could get into, and which aren't clear cut. It would not suprise me if the content of a TAF discovered on the PIC's corpse affected an insurer's view of matters, for example...
I don't have the experience of actual cases to add to this thread, but your Example #2 is a pretty serious example of how careful a PPL-only pilot has to be with the TAFs. No flying if the forecast cloudbase is anywhere near the MSA. In that situation I would call 121.5 immediately I established there is no suitable airfield close.
Of course, getting the IMCR/IR and keeping current is the proper way to do this
But even then one cannot fly a non-deiced plane if the freezing level is at/below the MSA unless the clouds are scattered or better...You could come up with lots of scenarios like this which a pilot could get into, and which aren't clear cut. It would not suprise me if the content of a TAF discovered on the PIC's corpse affected an insurer's view of matters, for example...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys for the replies!
The examples I gave were only to show the type of emergency I was thinking of. In my case 1, I was just showing how an emergency could occur, without either the pilot being at fault or something happening to the airplane. And in case 2, I was giving an example of how the pilot could be at fault.
FFF-I agree that weather problems doen't always equal an emergency! But thanks for your reply. Helpful as always
I only gave different situations, on the assumption that there might be different requirement in different circumstances!
Just to clarify, and I'll edit my orignal post to correct; in my case 5, I was assuming that an emergency did happen during the flight, and that it was declared. The main difference being that the emergeny did result in damage or injury.
In any case it's good to know that there is no downside whatsoever in declaring an emergency.
Thanks for the replies.
dp
The examples I gave were only to show the type of emergency I was thinking of. In my case 1, I was just showing how an emergency could occur, without either the pilot being at fault or something happening to the airplane. And in case 2, I was giving an example of how the pilot could be at fault.
FFF-I agree that weather problems doen't always equal an emergency! But thanks for your reply. Helpful as always
I only gave different situations, on the assumption that there might be different requirement in different circumstances!
Just to clarify, and I'll edit my orignal post to correct; in my case 5, I was assuming that an emergency did happen during the flight, and that it was declared. The main difference being that the emergeny did result in damage or injury.
In any case it's good to know that there is no downside whatsoever in declaring an emergency.
Thanks for the replies.
dp
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting subject.
Say you’re flying VMC and inadvertently fly into cloud, do a 180deg level turn but to no avail. I'd presume this would defiantly be a Mayday call, I recall reading in one of my books that its expected to lose control in 1min if not qualified to fly IMC. What would the procedure be here, first instance I’d presume you fly straight to MSA but would ATC guide you or what would happen?
And… If you flew into cloud (not like a FEW cloud) but the 180 deg turn worked and you came straight back out, would you make a precautionary landing and report this?
In both instances obviously the solution is to plan properly and not put yourself into the situation but i was just wondering what if...
Spike
Say you’re flying VMC and inadvertently fly into cloud, do a 180deg level turn but to no avail. I'd presume this would defiantly be a Mayday call, I recall reading in one of my books that its expected to lose control in 1min if not qualified to fly IMC. What would the procedure be here, first instance I’d presume you fly straight to MSA but would ATC guide you or what would happen?
And… If you flew into cloud (not like a FEW cloud) but the 180 deg turn worked and you came straight back out, would you make a precautionary landing and report this?
In both instances obviously the solution is to plan properly and not put yourself into the situation but i was just wondering what if...
Spike
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, I used to have no sympathy with a PPL who get caught out by the weather, a few weeks ago I thought I'd go on a jolly old jaunt around Cornwall and see what this low level, bad weather Nav is all about. Scud running at 1000' just below the clouds, terrain up to 1300' around me...well aerials were somewhere out there but I couldn't see them. RIS not much good at that level, cloudbase lowering and closing in around me....I would have been seriously concerned had I not had instrument experience, instead I thought boogger that and climbed to FL40 and headed home in the clag. My only advice to PPL's who want to mess with the weather is to get an Instrument qualification or a helicopter [so you can land
]. A mayday in this situation is not really much good, especially when you start to flap.
Cheers
EA
]. A mayday in this situation is not really much good, especially when you start to flap.Cheers
EA
PPRuNe's favourite BABE!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under the duvet!!!!
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spikeee,
Anytime that a pilot enters cloud flying vfr then there is a problem!
The last thing a pilot needs to do is panic. The best thing he can do is call ATC.
The first thing ATC will do is find out your position and try and identify you. Once we know where you are we can help with terrain level info and if needs be give you tracks to fly.
If you are lower than the highest ground we will tell you the msa. It is up to you wither you want to climb or not. Some go lower trying to get out of cloud and sight of surface. The decision is yours. However if you are not above the msa we will not vector you incase you go into a hill or other object. We will give as much information as possible as to terrain, etc until such times as you fly out of cloud. The fact that you are or are not imc qualified is not our concern, and we dont police it. All we wanna do is see you safely land in the quickest and safest manor.
The quickest way to get our attention is to call a pan or mayday. I cant stress enough times how important it is to call a pan/mayday, even if it doesn't develop into a full scale emergency. You will have our undivided attention and help until things are sorted.
As for the origional question from Dublinflyer, as far as ATC are concerned all accidents which result in damage or injury must be reported.
Anytime that a pilot enters cloud flying vfr then there is a problem!
The last thing a pilot needs to do is panic. The best thing he can do is call ATC.
The first thing ATC will do is find out your position and try and identify you. Once we know where you are we can help with terrain level info and if needs be give you tracks to fly.
If you are lower than the highest ground we will tell you the msa. It is up to you wither you want to climb or not. Some go lower trying to get out of cloud and sight of surface. The decision is yours. However if you are not above the msa we will not vector you incase you go into a hill or other object. We will give as much information as possible as to terrain, etc until such times as you fly out of cloud. The fact that you are or are not imc qualified is not our concern, and we dont police it. All we wanna do is see you safely land in the quickest and safest manor.
The quickest way to get our attention is to call a pan or mayday. I cant stress enough times how important it is to call a pan/mayday, even if it doesn't develop into a full scale emergency. You will have our undivided attention and help until things are sorted.
As for the origional question from Dublinflyer, as far as ATC are concerned all accidents which result in damage or injury must be reported.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spikeee
As a PPL you are supposed to do the 180 to exit from the cloud, then you proceed elsewhere. No need to report that, I am sure.
But I suggest you get some instrument training; one day it will save your life. It takes only an hour or two to learn to fly level, holding a heading, on instruments.
As a PPL you are supposed to do the 180 to exit from the cloud, then you proceed elsewhere. No need to report that, I am sure.
But I suggest you get some instrument training; one day it will save your life. It takes only an hour or two to learn to fly level, holding a heading, on instruments.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
I'd love to get a IR. In fact I hope to someday.
However as I fly just for fun, and have no commerical ambitions in aviation, the cost of an IR is just too prohibitive!
Unfortunately here in Ireland, we don't have an equviliant of an IMC rating either.
As for going to the US and getting an IR....well the only N reg a/c I have ever seen over here was a Gulf Stream IV!!! I believe there are some around, they but aren't available to me to hire here in Dublin.
But then again an IR is another completely different topic!
dp
I'd love to get a IR. In fact I hope to someday.
However as I fly just for fun, and have no commerical ambitions in aviation, the cost of an IR is just too prohibitive!
Unfortunately here in Ireland, we don't have an equviliant of an IMC rating either.
As for going to the US and getting an IR....well the only N reg a/c I have ever seen over here was a Gulf Stream IV!!! I believe there are some around, they but aren't available to me to hire here in Dublin.
But then again an IR is another completely different topic!
dp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming for a moment, that there's enough of me (the PIC) left to be interviewed following an accident, what's to stop any potentially self-incriminatory statements made to the AAIB being used against me in a subsequent prosecution or civil suit?
Is there any rule which makes such statements inadmissable in court, or is it just left to my own sense of self-preservation to know when to stop co-operating with the AAIB investigators?
Is there any rule which makes such statements inadmissable in court, or is it just left to my own sense of self-preservation to know when to stop co-operating with the AAIB investigators?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dublinpilot
Fair enough, you seem to know that a JAA IR is a lot of work etc, and an FAA IR needs an N-reg plane...
But what I was getting at was rather more along the lines of getting some instrument training without getting any rating at the end of it.
Even "PPL" flying is often done in not-great visibility and being able to fly partially on instruments is a great asset. Take present weather for example, very sunny and warm but often very hazy. Many PPL trainees are waiting for their qualifying cross country flight and their instructor won't let them go, because of the lack of a horizon, and because they are flying on HIS insurance. Extremely frustrating!! There are lots of "VFR" conditions when you can see ******-all. Flying into the sun is another example, etc.
Fair enough, you seem to know that a JAA IR is a lot of work etc, and an FAA IR needs an N-reg plane...
But what I was getting at was rather more along the lines of getting some instrument training without getting any rating at the end of it.
Even "PPL" flying is often done in not-great visibility and being able to fly partially on instruments is a great asset. Take present weather for example, very sunny and warm but often very hazy. Many PPL trainees are waiting for their qualifying cross country flight and their instructor won't let them go, because of the lack of a horizon, and because they are flying on HIS insurance. Extremely frustrating!! There are lots of "VFR" conditions when you can see ******-all. Flying into the sun is another example, etc.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well tyro if you say it, they can use it. Which is where the natural tendancy to keep 'stum' comes in. Which is why there are so many ILAFFT sort of articles penned anonymously I guess.
IO-540 - As for a limited amount of IFR flying ability - I cannot see how that is going to help. The major criticism of the IMC rating is that it is a rating to get you into trouble. Unless you frequently practise these skills they don't actually exist. Even the level of training for that is not enough to keep the sunny side up for many people.
IO-540 - As for a limited amount of IFR flying ability - I cannot see how that is going to help. The major criticism of the IMC rating is that it is a rating to get you into trouble. Unless you frequently practise these skills they don't actually exist. Even the level of training for that is not enough to keep the sunny side up for many people.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get some instrument instruction then practice using it when you're flying around with your mates etc. Could save your life one day. I remember thinking after 15 hrs of the FAA IR that I would NEVER be able to fly on instruments. Thinking back about it though, I would have been able to keep control of an aircraft in the clag had I accidentally flown it. Part of it is the expectation that it is terrifying to be out of sight of the ground. 3 years on and a fair few hours actual I don't even think about it, I have flown through some pretty serious frontal IMC and although it was rough, raining so hard you could hear it in the headset quite loud, dark and quiet on the radio [cause no one else was flying ] I actually enjoyed it. The thing that REALLY scares me is meeting an embedded Cb in there. Last flight I did we ended up in and out of IMC with these big Cbs towering around us. Nothing we could do except head for the lighter bits, at one point it was getting so dark in there, commercial traffic was "deviating for weather" on the radio my ass was starting to twitch ... had a storm scope but it is not much good for avoiding cells. [We would have given a lot for a Radar at that point]. Not 30 minutes after landing a big thunder storm passed overhead 
Still you live and learn. There is no reason a PPL should get themselves killed becasue of "normal" weather in my book...
Cheers
EA
] I actually enjoyed it. The thing that REALLY scares me is meeting an embedded Cb in there. Last flight I did we ended up in and out of IMC with these big Cbs towering around us. Nothing we could do except head for the lighter bits, at one point it was getting so dark in there, commercial traffic was "deviating for weather" on the radio my ass was starting to twitch ... had a storm scope but it is not much good for avoiding cells. [We would have given a lot for a Radar at that point]. Not 30 minutes after landing a big thunder storm passed overhead Still you live and learn. There is no reason a PPL should get themselves killed becasue of "normal" weather in my book...
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gasax
The major criticism of the IMC rating is that it is a rating to get you into trouble.
I strongly disagree. Please suggest a rating which might get one OUT of trouble?? An ATPL?
If you happen to be an instructor, have you ever wondered why some 90% of PPLs chuck it all in before their PPL comes up for its first renewal? I would suggest the main reason is that the PPL syllabus, as it stands, is inadequate for flying in UK weather.
Currency is nearly everything. An IMCR pilot, with good currency on type, in a suitably equipped and maintained plane, will be a lot safer than somebody with every rating in the book who hasn't flown for a year.
The JAA IR, with its silly ATPL ground school, is out of reach of most private pilots. The much more sensible FAA IR is out of reach of most non-owners (because it needs an N-reg plane; you can run a group around one but they all need an FAA PPL or an endorsement). And the dropout rate of PPL-only pilots is incredibly high; perhaps just as well as a bare PPL is useless for much of the year.
Never knock the IMC Rating. It is the baseline for practical flying in the UK, a requirement for anyone who wants to do decent cross-country flights without the continual hassle of weather cancellations, weather diversions, etc. Over a year, the majority of the VFR or IFR flights I do would not have been prudently done by a PPL pilot, based on what the TAFs say.
The major criticism of the IMC rating is that it is a rating to get you into trouble.
I strongly disagree. Please suggest a rating which might get one OUT of trouble?? An ATPL?
If you happen to be an instructor, have you ever wondered why some 90% of PPLs chuck it all in before their PPL comes up for its first renewal? I would suggest the main reason is that the PPL syllabus, as it stands, is inadequate for flying in UK weather.
Currency is nearly everything. An IMCR pilot, with good currency on type, in a suitably equipped and maintained plane, will be a lot safer than somebody with every rating in the book who hasn't flown for a year.
The JAA IR, with its silly ATPL ground school, is out of reach of most private pilots. The much more sensible FAA IR is out of reach of most non-owners (because it needs an N-reg plane; you can run a group around one but they all need an FAA PPL or an endorsement). And the dropout rate of PPL-only pilots is incredibly high; perhaps just as well as a bare PPL is useless for much of the year.
Never knock the IMC Rating. It is the baseline for practical flying in the UK, a requirement for anyone who wants to do decent cross-country flights without the continual hassle of weather cancellations, weather diversions, etc. Over a year, the majority of the VFR or IFR flights I do would not have been prudently done by a PPL pilot, based on what the TAFs say.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dublinpilot,
Don't forget that most of the answers here have been based on the reactions of the relatively sensible chaps at the CAA. I'm sure the Institute Against Aviation's interpretation of things could be a little different.
Don't forget that most of the answers here have been based on the reactions of the relatively sensible chaps at the CAA. I'm sure the Institute Against Aviation's interpretation of things could be a little different.