Heli down in Cumbria.
I imagine that most of the instrument practice is done with a hood ? When i did my hood flying i found it very easy...up...down ...turns etc absolutely NO problem . Then i flew in cloud ....
no peeking out of the bottom of the hood....no idea of up and down from the brightness...
my small brain shrinking as even the simplest of tasks like changing radio freq becomes a massive task ...that feeling of panic lurking just below the surface.......and that was WITH another ir pilot !!! I may be wrong but hood prepared me IN NO WAY for the real thing. Your brain is going to play tricks with you.......maybe there should be either some proper instrument training ....or none.? My tuppence worth is maybe there should be more with some actual . ( done in a single with high cloud base with caa approval etc)
no peeking out of the bottom of the hood....no idea of up and down from the brightness... my small brain shrinking as even the simplest of tasks like changing radio freq becomes a massive task ...that feeling of panic lurking just below the surface.......and that was WITH another ir pilot !!! I may be wrong but hood prepared me IN NO WAY for the real thing. Your brain is going to play tricks with you.......maybe there should be either some proper instrument training ....or none.? My tuppence worth is maybe there should be more with some actual . ( done in a single with high cloud base with caa approval etc)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sunny side up
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the views expressed, in relation to how to deal with deteriorating weather, really concerns me. It sounds like egos and confidence are way out of proportion to experience for some posting here.
The rules are in place for your safety and those of your passengers, if you come up to the limits then land and wait, don't bust them!
This is not rocket science.
The rules are in place for your safety and those of your passengers, if you come up to the limits then land and wait, don't bust them!
This is not rocket science.
"As for punching up .....well if i were a better pilot and had 100,s hours instrument then i agree but for me i think it would be a death sentence and would rather put it down on a hill or into trees and write it off if there were no other way out."
Agreed.
However. My posting was purely mentioned in the context of real life situations I have found myself in, which in the prevailing circumstances "punching up" was a far better option than putting it in a tree. For they were the only 2 remaining choices. To have put it in a tree they would never have found me (8/8th remote mountainous jungle with 200+ foot canopy), and I would be dead.
I am no stranger to IFR, but in properly equipped helicopters. So taking a punt on "punching up" in a VFR helicopter and flying it for 30 minutes in the gloop, which is not a very comfortably feeling I might add, proved to be the better option. Because I lived, and learned from the experience. But again, I re-iterate, it is an option of absolute last resort and should not be attempted by anyone with limited IFR experience. Otherwise, put it in the tree as Nigels suggests and take your chances.
Edit: And I agree also with Nigel that IF flying practice/training solely under the hood, does not prepare you adequately for flying in cloud.
Agreed.
However. My posting was purely mentioned in the context of real life situations I have found myself in, which in the prevailing circumstances "punching up" was a far better option than putting it in a tree. For they were the only 2 remaining choices. To have put it in a tree they would never have found me (8/8th remote mountainous jungle with 200+ foot canopy), and I would be dead.
I am no stranger to IFR, but in properly equipped helicopters. So taking a punt on "punching up" in a VFR helicopter and flying it for 30 minutes in the gloop, which is not a very comfortably feeling I might add, proved to be the better option. Because I lived, and learned from the experience. But again, I re-iterate, it is an option of absolute last resort and should not be attempted by anyone with limited IFR experience. Otherwise, put it in the tree as Nigels suggests and take your chances.
Edit: And I agree also with Nigel that IF flying practice/training solely under the hood, does not prepare you adequately for flying in cloud.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 400ft
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The instrument training should be undertaken over water. You'll notice an immediate deterioration as you leave land and the brain loses the visual clues you're not even aware of.
SIDT
SIDT
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel
"hihover..that is fine but we live in the real world where people will set off in a hope of finding a clear route.....rightly or wrongly. Also ( not trying to be a smart ass but..) if the rules set out are so well thought out and for our benefit do you believe that they are working ???? It is pointless saying thou shalt not....when you know people like us WILL !!!!!"
I agree that in the real world, there are times when we can apply local knowledge to a general forecast and we can expect to find a way through - I see nothing wrong with that if the adventure is thought through and flown within the rules. But if you can't get through without breaking the rules then you have to call it a day before you put yourself and your passengers and the unsuspecting public below you in danger. You are advocationg that you continue probing and looking for that way through, even if it means a 45 minute hover over trees or slow to a creeping speed in order to make it work when all the indications are bad..... come on Nigel.
Do I think the rules are working? Absolutely yes, based on the number of safe flights carried out each day.
If you can come up with a better set, you may want to present it to someone who can have the rules changed.
Do bear in mind, the moment we start breaking the rules, insurance policies become just pieces of paper. That is always at the back of my mind.
Thou shalt not..... is not what I'm saying, I'm saying if thou bl00dy does, then thou needst to be able to defend thyself when thou cocks it up. Non-compliance because you don't like a rule or because you know better will not work. I don't make the rules Nigel, like most, I try my best to adhere to them because they have been set by better and wiser people than I.
I agree that in the real world, there are times when we can apply local knowledge to a general forecast and we can expect to find a way through - I see nothing wrong with that if the adventure is thought through and flown within the rules. But if you can't get through without breaking the rules then you have to call it a day before you put yourself and your passengers and the unsuspecting public below you in danger. You are advocationg that you continue probing and looking for that way through, even if it means a 45 minute hover over trees or slow to a creeping speed in order to make it work when all the indications are bad..... come on Nigel.
Do I think the rules are working? Absolutely yes, based on the number of safe flights carried out each day.
If you can come up with a better set, you may want to present it to someone who can have the rules changed.
Do bear in mind, the moment we start breaking the rules, insurance policies become just pieces of paper. That is always at the back of my mind.
Thou shalt not..... is not what I'm saying, I'm saying if thou bl00dy does, then thou needst to be able to defend thyself when thou cocks it up. Non-compliance because you don't like a rule or because you know better will not work. I don't make the rules Nigel, like most, I try my best to adhere to them because they have been set by better and wiser people than I.
Last edited by hihover; 12th Aug 2007 at 17:56.
Compare numbers of those that did to those that should have.
Is part of the probelm that when it gets really hairy it is too late to find a suitable safe landing site?
How many cases are there of pilots who knowing they are out of their depth in poor weather conditions opt for putting it down with the certain knowledge that some damage will be done to the aircraft, rather than continue in IMC?
Mickjoebill
How many cases are there of pilots who knowing they are out of their depth in poor weather conditions opt for putting it down with the certain knowledge that some damage will be done to the aircraft, rather than continue in IMC?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 500 ft rule is there to stop us pissing people off on the ground. Not for our safety. If there is clear air at 300ft and cloud at 500 I know where I am going to be. If I am at 300ft I will be landing if safe. This does not infringe rule 5. The 500 ft rule is about socially acceptable flying. Dont die because of it. Bear in mind that if you are at 500 ft but in cloud you are still breaking the law, a different law, and putting yourself at great risk.
In an ideal world we would all fly in CAVOK but life just isnt like that.
I also think that the 5 hours instrument appreciation is worthwhile. If you really end up in the **** then at least you have a chance of getting out of it. Its not ideal training for IMC but its better than none.
In an ideal world we would all fly in CAVOK but life just isnt like that.
I also think that the 5 hours instrument appreciation is worthwhile. If you really end up in the **** then at least you have a chance of getting out of it. Its not ideal training for IMC but its better than none.
Hihover ...i accept your point but i was never suggesting pushing to the limit where you end up like my two friends !!!! That was just a point to make that IF you got in that position there are alternatives to going into cloud.
I,m not sure that the rules really are working in this instance but as has been said before flying below 500ft is not illegal....even over obstacles etc ....if it is part of your approach to find a suitable landing spot. If at the end of your approach there is a clear break then you may choose to abort your planned landing .
I,m not sure that the rules really are working in this instance but as has been said before flying below 500ft is not illegal....even over obstacles etc ....if it is part of your approach to find a suitable landing spot. If at the end of your approach there is a clear break then you may choose to abort your planned landing .
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate the making an approach to land arguement, but by that rationale couldn't you claim that could fly low level, below VFR limits, making several "approaches" to a landing site that kept getting further away? surely the CAA has heard that excuse before?
Nigel, I am sorry to say it but Helen's earlier assessment seems to be true if you believe what you are posting about rules.
Just because a rule doesn't suit you or what you perceive your capabilities to be does not give you carte blanche to ignore it.
The graveyards are full of pilots who thought they knew better than the legislators and then discovered the rules were there for thier protection, mainly from themselves.
It is strange that you acknowledge your limitations with regard to instrument flight but not low level/poor weather flight.
If your are on a VFR transit and your choice is to descend below 500' or turn back then you should make the turn back decision then, not 5 miles later when you are now at 100' having compromised your safety and that of your passengers.
If you want the thrill of low flying then do it over a suitable area on a good day - don't wait until you are forced into it by weather.
Just because a rule doesn't suit you or what you perceive your capabilities to be does not give you carte blanche to ignore it.
The graveyards are full of pilots who thought they knew better than the legislators and then discovered the rules were there for thier protection, mainly from themselves.
It is strange that you acknowledge your limitations with regard to instrument flight but not low level/poor weather flight.
If your are on a VFR transit and your choice is to descend below 500' or turn back then you should make the turn back decision then, not 5 miles later when you are now at 100' having compromised your safety and that of your passengers.
If you want the thrill of low flying then do it over a suitable area on a good day - don't wait until you are forced into it by weather.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sunny side up
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab@SAAvn you are lucid as ever.
And it is true that "Experience is something that you wished you had a few moments before".
Overconfidence is a killer. How many pilots have returned to a crew room with tales of woe and thanking God they "got away with it". Of course those you do not hear from are those that "did NOT get away with it".
The impresion that some are giving is that it is a slur on their abilities to infer that landing is sometimes the better option, indeed some are quite blatent in their opinion that rules are for obedience of fools and the guidence of wise men. Well, not a great deal of wisdom is being demenstrated by some.
And it is true that "Experience is something that you wished you had a few moments before".
Overconfidence is a killer. How many pilots have returned to a crew room with tales of woe and thanking God they "got away with it". Of course those you do not hear from are those that "did NOT get away with it".
The impresion that some are giving is that it is a slur on their abilities to infer that landing is sometimes the better option, indeed some are quite blatent in their opinion that rules are for obedience of fools and the guidence of wise men. Well, not a great deal of wisdom is being demenstrated by some.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 'oop North
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm. Not sure I like where this is all heading. Launch into the unknown on the say-so of an observer at the other end (who undoubtably isn't a trained weather person) that you have a 200' gap under the clouds, fly as low as you like, and don't worry about an engine failure as it is an unlikely event anyway.
Pretty much everything you were taught NOT to do on your PPL course.
We've all done it, and hopefully we've all regretted it half way through and sworn we would never do it again when we have been lucky enough to survive. However, I would guess (hope) we have done it after being caught out by a dodgy forecast or just poor interpretation of said forecast.
What seems to be being advocated here is "pre-planned press-onitis" if such a thing exists. I think we should be really careful about promoting this as an acceptable form of "flight planning".
Maybe taken individually each of the above elements may be considered an acceptable risk. Put them together, and the holes in your Swiss Cheese Accident Model are starting to line up.
Pretty much everything you were taught NOT to do on your PPL course.
We've all done it, and hopefully we've all regretted it half way through and sworn we would never do it again when we have been lucky enough to survive. However, I would guess (hope) we have done it after being caught out by a dodgy forecast or just poor interpretation of said forecast.
What seems to be being advocated here is "pre-planned press-onitis" if such a thing exists. I think we should be really careful about promoting this as an acceptable form of "flight planning".
Maybe taken individually each of the above elements may be considered an acceptable risk. Put them together, and the holes in your Swiss Cheese Accident Model are starting to line up.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaxton,
Pre-planned pressonitis - exactly what it sounds like and very difinitely not the message that should be sent out by experienced pilots.
What concerns me most is the lack of a decision to cancel/abort. Some of these guys seem quite keen to fly themselves into a corner with the knowledge that it will be ok as there are other tricks that can be pulled out of the bag. It is not acceptable to take it that far, breaking rules or not.
It is not as simple as stating "just stay out of cloud", I would much rather be hearing "just don't allow unprofessionalism to get yourself into that mess in the first place".
What kind of message is being sent by you more experienced and influential pilots to the newer pilots you are in contact with?
tam
Pre-planned pressonitis - exactly what it sounds like and very difinitely not the message that should be sent out by experienced pilots.
What concerns me most is the lack of a decision to cancel/abort. Some of these guys seem quite keen to fly themselves into a corner with the knowledge that it will be ok as there are other tricks that can be pulled out of the bag. It is not acceptable to take it that far, breaking rules or not.
It is not as simple as stating "just stay out of cloud", I would much rather be hearing "just don't allow unprofessionalism to get yourself into that mess in the first place".
What kind of message is being sent by you more experienced and influential pilots to the newer pilots you are in contact with?
tam
Everything you say above makes total sense. IF there are to be rules then they have to be set somewhere ..i agree. Nowhere have i implied that you should plough on until 100ft !!! If you read carefully you will see that the point i have tried to make is that IF you get into bad weather then there may be a totally safe way under it but below 500ft....whatever you say on this site can be misinterpreted , and usually is !! You may disagree with me but it appears a lot of experienced pilots AGREE with me ...so we shall have to agree to disagree !!! ONE LAST TIME for the record .....i do not advocate flying low level in bad viz....period. But your point about turning back when it is 500ft just is not realistic and we all know that. At the end of the day it is each to his own . I still cannot accept that flying low is dangerous .....sorry !!!! Or maybe you can give me some incidents due to low level flying ???? I am prepared to learn and be corrected.
As for the caa reading ...fine !! This forum is for the discussion of safety matters and they should be delighted that people are talking about them.
Do not forget once again flight below 500ft is NOT illegal and CAN be the safest .
As for the caa reading ...fine !! This forum is for the discussion of safety matters and they should be delighted that people are talking about them.
Do not forget once again flight below 500ft is NOT illegal and CAN be the safest .
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
Flight below 500' is not AWLAYS illegal. There are SOME cases when it would be though.
Flying into cloud as a low/medium hours PPL WILL kill you (and your passengers).
Keeping clear of cloud is common sense. Pushing that clear of cloud until the point that you end up flying into it at 100-200' AGL and slow IS a truly frightening prospect.
The rules are restrictive, but all these CFIT incidents show is that for those that bend or break those rules the incident rate is high and injuries are severe. More flexible rules would only lead to more problems. Schools should take an active interest in all hires before authorising a flight. I wonder what percentage of CFIT are owners????
More worryingly the latest Trainingcom from the CAA details something like 6 out of 24 CFIT incidents had instructors onboard. We don't learn. The Jetranger that waited on the ground something like three hours before setting off again only to crash is a good example.
As a VFR pilot there is NO excuse for flying into cloud. (That common sense shouldn't have avoided in the first place.)
Got the figures now. From Heli Trainingcom 1/2007.
Research into the AAIB website for the 5 years pre and post JAR implementation (1996-2005) indicate there were 24 helicopter accidents in the UK where disorientation was a contributory factor and whilst 16 of those involved were PPl holders, of those only three were JAR PPL holders and two of those had night qualifications (6 accidents were with FI's on board). There is no obvious trend in aircraft type, teh accidents are split evenly between night and day flying, however it was noted teh majority of pilots involved did have less than 1000 flight hours
Flight below 500' is not AWLAYS illegal. There are SOME cases when it would be though.
Flying into cloud as a low/medium hours PPL WILL kill you (and your passengers).
Keeping clear of cloud is common sense. Pushing that clear of cloud until the point that you end up flying into it at 100-200' AGL and slow IS a truly frightening prospect.
The rules are restrictive, but all these CFIT incidents show is that for those that bend or break those rules the incident rate is high and injuries are severe. More flexible rules would only lead to more problems. Schools should take an active interest in all hires before authorising a flight. I wonder what percentage of CFIT are owners????
More worryingly the latest Trainingcom from the CAA details something like 6 out of 24 CFIT incidents had instructors onboard. We don't learn. The Jetranger that waited on the ground something like three hours before setting off again only to crash is a good example.
As a VFR pilot there is NO excuse for flying into cloud. (That common sense shouldn't have avoided in the first place.)
Got the figures now. From Heli Trainingcom 1/2007.
Research into the AAIB website for the 5 years pre and post JAR implementation (1996-2005) indicate there were 24 helicopter accidents in the UK where disorientation was a contributory factor and whilst 16 of those involved were PPl holders, of those only three were JAR PPL holders and two of those had night qualifications (6 accidents were with FI's on board). There is no obvious trend in aircraft type, teh accidents are split evenly between night and day flying, however it was noted teh majority of pilots involved did have less than 1000 flight hours
Last edited by Flingingwings; 13th Aug 2007 at 14:19.
Crab said:
"Just because a rule doesn't suit you or what you perceive your capabilities to be does not give you carte blanche to ignore it."
A bit pious don't you think Crab? From your comment it would also follow that you're never found driving over 70mph on a motorway.........?
I don't know who said it but it stands in every other aspect of life so I don't necessarily see why aviation should be different - Rules/Laws are there for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools.
And before everyone jumps on what I've posted, I'll put it into context. I'm not advocating routinely breaking Rule 5 (or any other Rule for that matter). What I'm trying to say is that sometimes, every so often, when the weather is marginal a flight can be accomplished more safely by not worrying overly about breaking the 500ft Rule when staying VMC is paramount. This will then provide the thinking time to make a decision to land, turn round, or continue.
John Jackson
"Just because a rule doesn't suit you or what you perceive your capabilities to be does not give you carte blanche to ignore it."
A bit pious don't you think Crab? From your comment it would also follow that you're never found driving over 70mph on a motorway.........?
I don't know who said it but it stands in every other aspect of life so I don't necessarily see why aviation should be different - Rules/Laws are there for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools.
And before everyone jumps on what I've posted, I'll put it into context. I'm not advocating routinely breaking Rule 5 (or any other Rule for that matter). What I'm trying to say is that sometimes, every so often, when the weather is marginal a flight can be accomplished more safely by not worrying overly about breaking the 500ft Rule when staying VMC is paramount. This will then provide the thinking time to make a decision to land, turn round, or continue.
John Jackson
Flingingwing .......... Pushing that clear of cloud until the point that you end up flying into it at 100-200' AGL and slow IS a truly frightening prospect
I promised myself i would let this drop .............you obviously believe it is unsafe to fly low. That is fine with me , but i think your emphasis on hight being safe is just wrong...on certain occasions .. You emphasise disorientation as a prime cause of accidents and i agree. Surely you must agree that being below the cloud , albeit for a while at below the magic 500ft , in good viz has just GOT to be the safe option ???? I do not believe for one minute that you would be scared if i flew you at 2-300 agl over a hill without a cloud above ??? The whole point of SLOW is that you have time to stop or turn and is good sense in any weather low level IMHO.
over and out !! fly safe.
I promised myself i would let this drop .............you obviously believe it is unsafe to fly low. That is fine with me , but i think your emphasis on hight being safe is just wrong...on certain occasions .. You emphasise disorientation as a prime cause of accidents and i agree. Surely you must agree that being below the cloud , albeit for a while at below the magic 500ft , in good viz has just GOT to be the safe option ???? I do not believe for one minute that you would be scared if i flew you at 2-300 agl over a hill without a cloud above ??? The whole point of SLOW is that you have time to stop or turn and is good sense in any weather low level IMHO.
over and out !! fly safe.
Nigel, you may feel comfortable doing what you describe, but you are wrong to try and encourage others to do the same. Planning to fly through a gap in the hills, with low cloud, that you are familiar with is one thing. Continuing on in deteriorating/bad weather is another.
Remeber, the above example takes place in a nice, stable fixed wing, not an unstable helicopter.
How long can a pilot who has little or no instrument training expect to live after he flies into bad weather and loses visual contact? Researchers at the University of Illinois did some tests and came up with some very interesting data. Twenty student "guinea pigs" flew into simulated instrument weather, and all went into graveyard spirals or rollercoasters [a tribute to the U of I flight training program??]. The outcome differed in only one respect - the time required till control was lost. The interval ranged from 480 seconds to 20 seconds. The average time was 178 seconds -- two seconds short of three minutes.
Here's the fatal scenario. . . . . . .
The sky is overcast and the visibility is poor. That reported five mile visibility looks more like two, and you can't judge the height of the overcast. Your altimeter tells you that you are at 1500 feet but your map tells you that there's lcoal terrain as high as 1200 feet. There might be a tower nearby because you're not sure how far off course you are. But you've flown into worse weather than this, so press on.
You find yourself unconsciously easing back just a bit on the controls to clear those towers. With no warning, you're in the soup. You peer so hard into the milky white mist that your eyes hurt. You fight the feeling in your stomach. You try to swallow, only to find your mouth dry. Now you realize you should have waited for better weather. The appointment was important, but not all that important. Somewhere a voice is saying, "You've had it -- it's all over!"
You now have 178 seconds to live.
Your aircraft feels on even keel but your compass turns slowly. You push a little rudder and add a little pressure on the controls to stop the turn but this feels unnatural and you return the controls to their original position. This feels better but now your compass is turning a little faster and your airspeed is increasing slightly. You scan your instruments for help but what you see looks somewhat unfamiliar. You're sure that this is just a bad spot. You'll break out in a few minutes. (But you don't have a few minutes left. . .)
You now have 100 seconds to live.
You glance at your altimeter and you are shocked to see it unwinding. You're already down to 1200 feet. Instinctively, you pull back on the controls but the altimeter still unwinds. The engine is into the red and the airspeed, nearly so.
You have 45 seconds to live.
Now you're sweating and shaking. There must be something wrong with the controls; pulling back only moves the airspeed indicator further into the red. You can hear the wind tearing at the aircraft.
You are about to meet your Maker; you have 10 seconds to live.
Suddenly you see the ground. The trees rush up at you. You can see the horizon if you turn your head far enough but it's at a weird angle -- you're almost inverted. You open your mouth to scream but. . . . . .
. . . .you just ran out of seconds.
Think about it before you press on into marginal weather.
Here's the fatal scenario. . . . . . .
The sky is overcast and the visibility is poor. That reported five mile visibility looks more like two, and you can't judge the height of the overcast. Your altimeter tells you that you are at 1500 feet but your map tells you that there's lcoal terrain as high as 1200 feet. There might be a tower nearby because you're not sure how far off course you are. But you've flown into worse weather than this, so press on.
You find yourself unconsciously easing back just a bit on the controls to clear those towers. With no warning, you're in the soup. You peer so hard into the milky white mist that your eyes hurt. You fight the feeling in your stomach. You try to swallow, only to find your mouth dry. Now you realize you should have waited for better weather. The appointment was important, but not all that important. Somewhere a voice is saying, "You've had it -- it's all over!"
You now have 178 seconds to live.
Your aircraft feels on even keel but your compass turns slowly. You push a little rudder and add a little pressure on the controls to stop the turn but this feels unnatural and you return the controls to their original position. This feels better but now your compass is turning a little faster and your airspeed is increasing slightly. You scan your instruments for help but what you see looks somewhat unfamiliar. You're sure that this is just a bad spot. You'll break out in a few minutes. (But you don't have a few minutes left. . .)
You now have 100 seconds to live.
You glance at your altimeter and you are shocked to see it unwinding. You're already down to 1200 feet. Instinctively, you pull back on the controls but the altimeter still unwinds. The engine is into the red and the airspeed, nearly so.
You have 45 seconds to live.
Now you're sweating and shaking. There must be something wrong with the controls; pulling back only moves the airspeed indicator further into the red. You can hear the wind tearing at the aircraft.
You are about to meet your Maker; you have 10 seconds to live.
Suddenly you see the ground. The trees rush up at you. You can see the horizon if you turn your head far enough but it's at a weird angle -- you're almost inverted. You open your mouth to scream but. . . . . .
. . . .you just ran out of seconds.
Think about it before you press on into marginal weather.