SoCal

That depends on a number of factors one concerning the aircraft type and autopilot fitted to it as well as how far he takes his unnoficial training.
He could for instance model the IMCr in his unnoficial training?

As an unqualified for IMC flight pilot it is more likely that the pilot would be radar vectored to a safe cloud break point.

If the cloudbase was too low an SRA or even a PAR.
Vectors onto an ILS with an autopilot fitted with app mode should hold the localiser and glide giving him speed control only to deal with.

So I would adjust your comments to depending on his training and the aircraft
But its that scenario I think he wants to cover.


Pace

this looks a good DVD too
CD-ROMs & DVDs | IFR / IR Training | NCD301 | JAA/EASA PPL IMC Rating & Instrument Flying CD-Rom

Have you got a reference for that?

It's absolutely hilarious!!!

Reminds me of that helicopter pilot who got busted by the FAA :) (Search youtube for Martz ... )

TBH if I had an autopilot which can fly an ILS I would make damn sure I know how to operate that - as well as every other piece of avionics in such a plane.

The traditional UK way of getting people down when stuck in IMC or above a cloud is to send them off somewhere where nothing big is sticking up, and let them descend - or variations on that. But that is a very sub-optimal way of doing it. A pilot technically (but not legally) capable of instrument flight has many better options.

Only applicable to airplanes with a stick, to avoid confusion.:E

Aopa.org drug dB, but it is members only http://www.aopa.org/members/database...?action=search...

"6 hour wait before flying":}

Actually it seems that most of the "banned" drugs are those used to treat mental disorders such as depression, psychosis, seizure disorder, panic disorders, some pain relief and stuff like that. Makes sense really, if you have a condition that could really be a hazard to flying and are on medication for it then you can't fly.

Don't learn CPR, you should never get yourself into the situation to need it if you stay near healthy people. Don't buy a fire extinguisher for your house, you should never end up in situation that you'll need it if your safe. Don't take out RAC cover on your car, you should never end up in situation that you'll need it if you look after your car properly.........................

:rolleyes: :ugh:

Socal

You and I normally speak the same language ;)

He did add the word "extremis" to his line meaning if all goes pear shaped.

People are very imperfect and with the best will in the world DO get into stupid situations.

So yes drum it into the VFR pilot "cloud !do not touch as they are nasty and likely to bite your head off".

But sadly many do hit awful situations and then you are left with your own abilities and skills to save you.

In that situation a VFR pilot with no instrument ability or nav aid knowledge doesnt stand a chance.

A pilot with some knowledge albeit limited stands a better chance.

IMO such a pilot just trained to fly on instruments and taught nothing more than tuning setting up and flying an ILS would with some radar unit to guide him to the right point "probably" be able to survive and I stress the word probably. A lot also depends on whether he could hold the plot and not freak himself out ie panic in the process.

Overload is the final killer. The point at which overload hits depends on so many things, experience, knowledge, natural ability etc and that runs right through to the most experienced of us. The only difference is our overload level is much much higher.

Pace

The dirty secret about night flying is that if there is a cloud on a moonless night, even if unforecast, on your route, you will most likely discover it by finding yourself inside it.

If the temperature is below freezing, you want to exit before ice adds to the fun. If terrain allows, a descent to a lower safe height may get you clear. Otherwise it may be time for a 180.

I thought of the NPPL but went FAA PPC which gave me 5 hrs under the hood; a lot better than 1 hour's NPPL appreciation IIRC. The microlight is a so called hot ship with better panel (D180) than the C152 I trained in.
I would be definitely in favour of good maintenance of the 180 turn out of trouble, as the minimum insurance against bad things happening. Descending out of cloud expecting to meet air before ground seems one hope too many one bad day? Well maybe if I'm feeling lucky.

Either way, OP has a good plan to buy insurance, whether he gets it legit or not, but better legit in case he can add it to a higher licence later.

Please don't try it!

There's no such thing as 'casual' IFR. It's all serious and potentially dangerous - especially for the inexperienced and unwary.

The number of people who have 'casually' lost control or flown into the ground is many and continues to build (including pilots I have known - on return from a 'casual' VFR flight that suddenly became IFR and they clipped the top of the only hill in the area).

With hands clasped in prayer I say PLEASE NO!

If the cloud or vis is low just think of the other possible factors - accompanying wind/turbulence and rain, other IFR traffic, reading approach plates (if you have them), changing frequency, people on the ground, your family!

Until you have flown an approach in bad weather you really can't imagine what it can be like - you wont like it at all but probably will reach the pearly gates having to explain not only why you are there but also why your friend, wife or unfortunate soul on the ground is in the queue with you!

Please let it be me!

Surely noone could seriously think they could fly ...............

Hopefully a kindly instructor will gently translate dreaming into reality and prove the point that 'fools go where angels fear to tread!'.

KR

FOK

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be able to fly on instruments, even if a VFR only pilot in a non certified aeroplane. There is nothing wrong with ANY further training, whether someone is then "certified" or not....That includes approaches. So go for it, learn to fly instruments and have some fun. The only reason (one of the..) I got my IR in the first place was because I went on a flying holiday in the USA and the weather was ****e. After a few days of kicking heels around the flying school we thought sod it and got a FI to take us flying in the crap. We got the bug and so ended up doing the IR.

I'm sure that if you interpret what the poster was saying correctly then one can safely assume that they were saying that they wanted to have a back up in case VFR goes tits up. Nothing wrong with that at all. I admit that I have never encountered "unexpected IMC" when VFR but then again I plan a VFR flight as if it will become IFR and so no major deal if it does (except the time the plates were in the back.....:O)

Actually a neat little trick I often use when VFR. Load the approach in and use that for guidance. We flew into Tucson a while back and having never been there before and because there is a military airfield right next door, it made it nice and easy to find the correct runway....

Use all available tools and be as prepared as possible......that's my motto (well it is now ;))

But that IS serious IFR flying! What more would you need to add to make it truly serious? Flying inverted? (The USAF apparently teach their pilots to do aerobatics in IMC though I'm not sure what the point is).

Flying in clouds is really serious stuff. Just holding a heading and altitude takes a lot of practice. Doing that AND all the other fiddling around that accompanies IFR flight (talking to ATC, twiddling radios and navaids, monitoring the engine...) takes REAL concentration.

Approaches are a challenge too. There's no such thing as "just being able to fly an ILS in case I need to". You need to practice constantly. I fly with an instructor about six times a year (most recently last night), and on my own in actual when I can, and I think that is really about the minimum. (And as it happens the FAA pretty much agrees, if you look at the currency requirements).

That said, instrument flying is also a lot of fun in a challenge-y sort of way, and I would strongly recommend doing it. And of course if you do it to a sufficient level of competence and stay current, then it may well save your life too, which is never a bad thing.

n5296s

N5296s

If you read the guys post you will see that he holds a NPPL only! because of a medical condition.

That means that he cannot hold any sort of official instrument qualification and cannot legally fly IFR or in IMC,( unless he flies a glider in which case he can do what he wants in cloud ) :ugh:

Anything he does has to be unofficial and he could only ever use those skills in an emergency situation which is all he as ever claimed he wanted it for.

Theoretically he could MODEL the IMCR and while he would never hold an official IMCR rating he would be as competant as a qualified IMCR pilot.

Currency? There is nothing to stop him grabbing an instructor every now and again or using his PC to keep current.

I commend him for taking his safety seriously by exploring his options to add some instrument flying as insurance against the worst.

nb I hope you and others here are NOT suggesting that a VFR pilot with NO instrument experience is safer than one who has a level of instrument experience? The French statistics dont support that!

The IMCR which many are trying to save is being touted as a safety feature not for some sort of IR but as a safeguard for VFR pilots but that is a different topic.
The IMCR is a pretty minimal instrument flying rating which if nothing else shows that treated with respect it does have safety benefits.

Hence all you can conclude from that is that ANY instrument training has to be better than NONE!!

Pace

That is also available as a free PDF from either of these links
www.pplir.org/rnavmanual
http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/...vmanual1_8.pdf

:ok:Well said that sums it up nicely. That would be the best choice for most hobby pilots IMHO. If one can keep current with doing a 180 out of the murky stuff, and also follow a VOR or vector from a friendy service, then those training objectives will do the trick. Recall that getting out of what you shouldna got into is what its about at this level.

Now if to train up to a higher standard of IFR, my guess is that human nature will make you champ at the bit and possibly sometimes want to have a go. Its at that point you might get in deeper than bargained for, such as meeting with turbulence that begins to overload and unravel the pilot. The problem is how to keep current if you cannot legally excercise your skills that you have bought at a significant price, and be damned if I don't get my value out of it at least some of the time type of attitude. Of course we pilots are all mature sensible people well arent we:oh:?

My plan is to remain current with PPL skill level by going up with an experienced pilot that I trust, putting on the foggles while trusting his lookout and babysitting skills, and doing it back up to checkride standards.

I would love for IMCR-type availability for suitable equipped microlights, for the purposes of climbing up on top and likewise descending. That would be a useful extension of capability which I think the aircraft is suited for. Unfortunately the strict legal technical rules in place dont currently allow this nor are they ever likely to unless we get into a much more flexible but sensible way of thinking about personal responsibility, relative and proportional risk taking, aeronautical safety skills and actual aircraft capability ...dreaming on...

I am with those who think that you should plan your flight to be either IFR or VFR and have a very clear distinction between each. It's great to have some skills just in case you get into that grey area in between the two but it really can be a very grey area in the literal sense. I appreciate that IMC training is never wasted but you need to practice it for real and legally to be safe and proficient otherwise it can provide a false sense of security. The mindset appears wrong so I think that is why there are a few flags being raised.

The problem is with some contingency training there is a tendency to push on in lowering viz and weather until all of a sudden you are now solid Imc. Once you are in solid Imc you may well be limited on options and the experience and skill level required to continue safely. This leads onto imc enroute flying and hoping that destination will be better (as forecast?), eventually though your luck will run out and you will need to safely execute an instrument approach (damn I hadn't planned for this to happen and I don't have any approach plates, now where is the nearest airfield with a suitable approach, Oh Sh&*t look at the bloody bank angle ! I don't like this !!!! What is the local MSA ? Isn't there a danger area near here ? Help !

Better to have a VFR mindset and divert early when still VFR

Apologies for the thread drift ....... but are there really glider pilots MENTAL enough to fly in cloud, without transponders etc. etc. ??!!

I would not be so righteous about keeping IFR and VFR watertight.

They are totally separated in the legal sense but e.g. take a nice English summer day: 3000m vis in haze, and for extra measure you are flying across the Channel. And just to make it more interesting the sun is in your face. No horizon, you can't see a bl00dy thing.

But you are 100.000% legal VFR.

On one such "summer" (which I would consider wonderful summer flying weather because low vis doesn't bother me at all) I have seen PPL students do no flying (no x/c, no QXC, no skills tests, just banging yet more stupid circuits) for several months. That sort of thing really shows the futility of being unable to fly in instrument conditions.

Then there is night flight. I don't mean "UK PPL night flight" as 99% of UK PPLs do it which is 31 mins after the official sunset and you quickly bang off the 3 circuits before it gets properly dark. Night flight in the true sense is totally instrument flight. But it is also 100.000% legal VFR.

Go figure, as they say.

Instrument skills, sufficient for aircraft control and navigation in solid IMC, come in really handy. So don't knock someone trying to pick them up, on the grounds that he can't fly legal IFR.

BelowRadar

We tend to look at what we do rather than what others do. As an example I flew into Le Touquet landing with an overcast sky cloudbase right on minima for the ILS,

I turned around and took off IFR just in time to hear a G reg homebuilt flying back VFR to the UK.

He was following the beaches past Le Touquet and had been forced down to below 200 feet. He was navigating using the sea/beach line. I had him on frequency listening to his progress as he turned towards the UK. Halfway across the channel I was relieved to hear he was climbing to 700 feet as the cloudbase had improved.

That may not be weather you would dream of flying VFR but this guy was and there are a surprising number who do get up to antics like that.

VMC on top

The answer to that is YES I nearly hit one in a twin :ugh:well documented in a long thread here but didnt you know that ? ;)

Pace

He was obviously illegal but he would have been a lot safer had he climbed up and flew VMC on top (assuming cloud tops not too high etc). That's what I used to do before I got my IR.

Funny you should say that, I experienced exactly the same thing several years ago. Flying to L2K the weather was crappier than expected, so in the end we asked for the ILS and shot an instrument approach in. We were closely followed by another aeroplane also from Bournemouth, who had crossed the channel at 400' to remain "vfr", despite the pilot holding an IR....And within about 15 minutes ther were several "vfr" arrivals from the UK...

Nuts if you ask me...

Well I did - and many of my contemporaries at the time when we were gaining Badges in the 70s.

My first high climb was in a Swallow using an altimeter, ASI and a turn and slip (only other instruments were a vario and a compass) in IMC from 2,500 cloud base to Silver C height at about 6,000 feet (well at least 1,000m height gain).

Gained several thosuand feet of altitude with no problem in cloud all the way, thermalling as I went.

The idea was that if you lost control it was either option (a) enter a spin and recover after breaking cloud or (b) pull the dive-limiting speed brakes and stuff the nose down and exit cloud at a somewhat higher speed.

I just flew out of the side of the cloud and flew back to the airfield.

Happy days.

KR

FOK

I agree a lot safer than dodging about at 200feet, but if he aint in sight of the surface that wont be legal either.

I cant believe people try and fly VFR in conditions such as these, I wouldn't dare!

I agree; it's stupid (apparently). Probably this was a warm front type weather so very high tops (~FL200). Mind you, the Islander cross-channel flights have often been seen scud running at an alleged 400ft :)

It may be a taboo subject in some places but there are many pilots who never get weather data. The same pilots never get notams. This IMHO is why AFPEx has caused such an uproar; it dragged out of the woodwork a bunch of pilots who could not use the internet so they never got weather, never got notams, but until the FBUs were shut they did manage to file flight plans so they could get to Le Touquet etc.

10540

He was flying a homebuilt aerobatic bi plane (think it was a baby greatlakes)
So unlikely he had much in there to get VMC on top and remain clear OCAS over the channel.

He probably took off legal VFR in France and was forced down.
Legal VFR? prob not but VMC in sight of the surface yes just.

Pace

Last Trislander I came back from Alderney in was scud running at 1,200ft. Nothing wrong with that, but it was well below his private airway which did seem a bit of a waste of controlled airspace!

which book ?
 

I cant remember the name of the authoress, but she was a very accomplished french pilot (Margaret ?) _ someone will know

As for PPL instrument flying, my opinion is that the IMC is OK for cruising in warm cloud with a large space between the bottoms and the green bit, but the only safe option is a full current CAA/JAA or whatever IR.

IMC holders will crucify me, but I read about them all the time....... in the monthly AAIB reports. IR holders would concur

Did both-- the standards and required situational awareness are miles apart.

I dont fly anymore, so have no axe to grind, but I never took my kids up IMC until I had an IR and a flew hours of using it for real into busy airports sometimes with a 757 closing, a load of drift and a request to hold 150 kts till 4dme and a cloud base of 300ft. :ok: Do that properly and you have confidence in your training- JD

Please describe the physical mechanism via which the weather can determine whether the pilot has an IR. Nobel prize stuff, that would be for sure...

Please list a few where the IMCR v. IR paperwork was relevant.

I learnt a lesson about VMC on top many years ago.

My instructor had warned me during training to be very careful, particularly when descending through a 'hole' in the clouds as they have a habit of closing in around as you descend.

Unperturbed a few years later I enjoyed a glorious flight VMC on top in sight of the surface (plenty of big 'holes') in an open-cockpit home-built at around 6,000 ft.

Over Kendal I saw a large hole and started my descent to an expected cloud base of around 2,000 ft.

On the way down Warton Radar asked if all was okay as I appeared to have stopped moving on their radar.

Truth was the 3,000 ft or so descent through cloud was in ever decreasing circles as I ended up in a tight spiral dive trying to maintain sight of the surface. I finally popped out into the murk at less than 2,000 ft and Kendal seemed closer than I expected.

The words of my instructor filled my head and I realised once again that I had learnt about flying the hard way - nothing illegal (complied with Rule 5), but nevertheless I was stirred if not shaken! It could have been much worse had the cloud base been lower, had I gone IMC in a steep spiral dive with no attitude instruments only an ASI and Altimeter (less than some gliders).

The expected rarely kills - it's the unexpected that can create a potentially lethal situation in absolutely no time at all.

KR

FOK

I expect you'll find that most accident reports - well the weather related incidents anyway - either come from IR holders or non-instrument rated pilots.

I personally know (knew) 1 IR holder who flew into a mountain during an instrument approach. I don't recall any specific weather related accident which was due to someone exercising the privileges of an IMC rating, although there may have been one or two where the pilot was attempting not to break any rules by trying to remain "vfr"....although they probably could have continued safely in IMC...

Here is another, more simplistic, way to view it:

If, for whatever reason, you found yourself in IMC would a) or b) give you the best chance of survival:

a) having no experience flying on instruments
b) having some experience, through instruction as suggested by the OP, but not being current

If it was you would you rather have a), or b)?

The debate here seems, for some, to have lost all sense of logic.

Thank you Baby Bear, I think that sums it up precisely!

Wrong question.

Here's the right question:

If you were thinking of going flying on a day when icky weather was forecast, or continuing flying when it becomes apparent that the weather is worse than forecast, will you have a better chance of staying on the ground, or getting yourself down soonest, and thus surviving, if:

(1) you've had no intstrument training and know that if you enter IMC you'll die

(2) you did some unofficial training a while back which you aren't entitled to use and haven't kept current but nonetheless think you can probably survive if you carry on into IMC?

(I've only ever read one account of "inadvertant" entry into IMC that I actually believe was inadvertant, which involved haze over water.)

The answer depends on what geography we are talking about. In the US I would have thought no IMCr pilots have come to grief due to IMC conditions ;).

Also, for the UK, the answer depends on what timeframe you look at. I was quite surprised at the decline in approach related fatal accidents over the last 20 years (some in 11-20 years ago, none 1-10 years ago). I suspect the increase in moving map GPS and more recently TAWS has significantly reduced the chances of a gross error approach accident (although the G-LENY accident was only by the grace of God not in the fatal category).

Over the years there have been a number (not a large number) of IMCr accidents that can quite reasonably be attributable to weather (i.e. hitting a hilltop reported as shrouded in cloud) - This is not in anyway questioning the safety of the IMCr - All sorts of pilots with all sorts of ratings come to grief.

http://www.caa.govt.nz/pilots/Instru..._Aero_Heli.pdf
http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X4874...AP%2520694.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_FCL_01.PDF

Read this lot and learn it.
If you fail you log PUT.

Gertrude, it is not for you to decide what question I should ask. On that basis I can assure you, it is most definitely the right question. You are of course free to make up any scenario you so choose in order for you to ask whatever question you choose.:ok:

Flying into/above cloud with no gyro instruments means that resulting trouble is hardly in the "unexpected" category :)

I was 'VMC on top' of an extensive layer of cloud, in sight of the surface albeit a distance away, with 'holes' in the cloud through which I decided to descend.

Obviously I wasn't 'VMC on top' in the true sense otherwise I would have had to ascend through some 3,000 ft of cloud with the same lack of gyro instruments to get there in the first place.

So the closing in of the 'hole' through which I descended was unexpected as I naturally didn't intend flying through cloud at any stage of the flight - I just didn't want the detour of many miles to the coast to descend at the edge of the cloud layer.

I fail to see how flying on top of cloud without gyro instruments, in itself, is a problem in any respect?

As I mentioned in a previous Post I have spent many happy flights in gliders thermalling in towering cu without any gyro instruments (other than a battery powered turn and slip) without any incident - as have many others.

I had no intention of flying in cloud without adequate instruments - that was the point - I didn't expect a 'hole' a mile wide to close up so quickly.

KR

FOK

Great choice of getting the Instrument Rating, now you can become a real pilot.

Really it's the choice of question which seems to separate all the opinions on this thread - and it always seems to polarise opinion!

For what it's worth, I'd suggest you need the attitude of gertrude's question (clear VMC, or don't go), and the training of Baby Bear's (any training may help when it all goes wrong).. some may manage that mindset, some may take a little IR as allowing 2) above. That said, a complete lack of training, official or otherwise seems not to preclude some people from bashing into solid IMC (and let's differentiate that from a lack of VMC), then the side of the hill etc.

I do think that there may be a little oversimplification going on - if we ignore some of the outliers, I would suggest for most people we do not deliberately set off in marginal conditions; equally, some of us fly further than 20 miles down the road, and the weather does not always obey the guessers predictions.