Heli down in Cumbria.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sunny side up
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea of "breaking rules being OK" on occasions is worrying. The Human Factors book that I have has some interesting things to say about this sort of behaviour.
"It is probably true to say that it is the development of rule based behaviours or procedures in aviation, and the associated training and checking of these behaviours, that has made commercial aviation as safe as it is". And, "Errors may also occur if the pilot believes that it is safe to depart from the procedure (disregard the rules).
"It is probably true to say that it is the development of rule based behaviours or procedures in aviation, and the associated training and checking of these behaviours, that has made commercial aviation as safe as it is". And, "Errors may also occur if the pilot believes that it is safe to depart from the procedure (disregard the rules).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The short time you have left, if you press on and you end up in cloud might just be long enough to consider the words of some that advocate.
for a non-IR pilot in a non-IFR equipped helicopter encountering inadvertent IMC, MightyGems's post should reinforce how important it is to stay out of cloud and to make an early met "go/no go" call and don't listen to those that advocate "scud running" 500' from objects is tricky when your below 500' agl, certainly in most places in the UK.
Regardless of if you have 5 hours PPL instrument appreciation, if the moment comes that you take a risk and "climb up into it" the initial disorientation will be imense and it is likely that some of the pilots that have been sadly killed in accidents with a contributing factor of inadvertent IMC probably shared the above thoughts right up until second 178.
And as for my thoughts on scud running, if you've been caught out in bad weather with no landing options, rather than going lower and lower and risk hitting something, there comes a point where I say bugger this and climb up into it, to a height where I know I'm not going to hit anything. It's a horrible choice but I'd rather be in the gloop at a safe height in a VFR helicopter, rather than risk flying into the ground or an unseen obstacle, burning up fuel with nowhere else to go.
Regardless of if you have 5 hours PPL instrument appreciation, if the moment comes that you take a risk and "climb up into it" the initial disorientation will be imense and it is likely that some of the pilots that have been sadly killed in accidents with a contributing factor of inadvertent IMC probably shared the above thoughts right up until second 178.
Mighty Gem ....your post is the perfect example of what i mean . There was an unecessary urgency to gain hight and visual contact lost.....i could not have put it any better. Thankyou. The pilot in your scenario would have lived if he had stayed in contact with the ground. Period. To continue into worse weather is just plain stupid, i agree.
Still nobody has come up with any relevant number of incidents where people
have flown into objects whilst remaining vfr...why is that ? There seem to be loads of inadvertant imc......dont you think someone is trying to tell us something ??
Max Chat ....i guess you are one of those guys that does a steady 70 on the m,way am i right ??
Still nobody has come up with any relevant number of incidents where people
have flown into objects whilst remaining vfr...why is that ? There seem to be loads of inadvertant imc......dont you think someone is trying to tell us something ??
Max Chat ....i guess you are one of those guys that does a steady 70 on the m,way am i right ??
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"And as for my thoughts on scud running, if you've been caught out in bad weather with no landing options, rather than going lower and lower and risk hitting something, there comes a point where I say bugger this and climb up into it, to a height where I know I'm not going to hit anything. It's a horrible choice but I'd rather be in the gloop at a safe height in a VFR helicopter, rather than risk flying into the ground or an unseen obstacle, burning up fuel with nowhere else to go."
Climbing into cloud is really,really bad thing to do. If you fly a 22 or 44 which has no central bias for the cyclic. This is seriously bad. You will very likely lose it.
Its not about getting away with it by low flying. If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in.You may be able to fly lower but the risk of wire/obstcle strike increases, and what happens if you then fly into a bank of cloud at 200 ft agl? You're really in it then.
Northern British weather is a serious handicap to using a helicopter as an alternative to a car. Get over it. I have.
Nigel, You are right. The CFIT accidents all happen because people end up in disorientated in cloud. We'll never know because they are dead, but its a fair probability that they ignored the early signs of entering IMC and they pressed on. The risk with the press on approach is you will one day say "Bugger it" and climb into the gloop.
Theres nothing wrong with the rules, and the training is sensible if it is followed. it should enable you to do a level turn 180 to get you out of the cloud you just flew into. It does not train you for sustained flight in cloud and it cannot eliminate the risk of CFIT but sure as hell, not following it makes it a whole lot more likely.
Nigel,
We agree, dont fly in cloud, but pressing on in the way you suggest is taking on unnecessary risk and suggesting it as an alternative which may be tempting to low hour pilots is way off the mark.
You ask ".....dont you think someone is trying to tell us something ??"
Yes. Abort earlier or dont go at all. Dont press on. Dont fly at 500ft scud running to stay 'legal'. Dont fly in cloud. Dont try and scrape under it. Dont crash and die.
Fly safely
Phil Price.
"And as for my thoughts on scud running, if you've been caught out in bad weather with no landing options, rather than going lower and lower and risk hitting something, there comes a point where I say bugger this and climb up into it, to a height where I know I'm not going to hit anything. It's a horrible choice but I'd rather be in the gloop at a safe height in a VFR helicopter, rather than risk flying into the ground or an unseen obstacle, burning up fuel with nowhere else to go."
Climbing into cloud is really,really bad thing to do. If you fly a 22 or 44 which has no central bias for the cyclic. This is seriously bad. You will very likely lose it.
Its not about getting away with it by low flying. If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in.You may be able to fly lower but the risk of wire/obstcle strike increases, and what happens if you then fly into a bank of cloud at 200 ft agl? You're really in it then.
Northern British weather is a serious handicap to using a helicopter as an alternative to a car. Get over it. I have.
Nigel, You are right. The CFIT accidents all happen because people end up in disorientated in cloud. We'll never know because they are dead, but its a fair probability that they ignored the early signs of entering IMC and they pressed on. The risk with the press on approach is you will one day say "Bugger it" and climb into the gloop.
Theres nothing wrong with the rules, and the training is sensible if it is followed. it should enable you to do a level turn 180 to get you out of the cloud you just flew into. It does not train you for sustained flight in cloud and it cannot eliminate the risk of CFIT but sure as hell, not following it makes it a whole lot more likely.
Nigel,
We agree, dont fly in cloud, but pressing on in the way you suggest is taking on unnecessary risk and suggesting it as an alternative which may be tempting to low hour pilots is way off the mark.
You ask ".....dont you think someone is trying to tell us something ??"
Yes. Abort earlier or dont go at all. Dont press on. Dont fly at 500ft scud running to stay 'legal'. Dont fly in cloud. Dont try and scrape under it. Dont crash and die.
Fly safely
Phil Price.
Last edited by Gaseous; 14th Aug 2007 at 01:19.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sunny side up
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigelh,
No, you are wrong. I sometimes drive at 65 if the conditions dictate, and if it is really $hitty I don't go at all.
Anyhow, with your attitude, and the lack of willingness to see what is an obvious fault in your reasoning, I will sign off and hope that you continue to "get away with it".
Max Chat ....i guess you are one of those guys that does a steady 70 on the m,way am i right ??
Anyhow, with your attitude, and the lack of willingness to see what is an obvious fault in your reasoning, I will sign off and hope that you continue to "get away with it".
"If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in."
Fine in theory, but in sticking to this as a hard and fast rule might mean not getting 90% of the work done, or even none at all for days at a time. Keep to it and the customer in all likelihood will have you booted off the job.
There is nothing inherently unsafe about flying in marginal weather below 500ft if you always keep a workable Plan B option to fall back on (and in my books, thinking IFR in a VFR machine doesn't constitute a Plan B, it's a Plan Z).
If the weather is really bad and you're entering the unsafe zone and decide to land or turn back, no problem, nobody will criticise you for that. But turning around only because you've got a bit less than 500ft to play with and the weather looks a bit iffy here and there, might earn you criticism in some instances for not showing enough "operational flexibility" (as some employers like to call it). You're tapped on the shoulder and told to start looking for another job, or just told to go.
I have never criticised any pilot for turning around, it's their decision to make and I will stand by it. I will express concern if they plough on into bad weather when other options are available. Time and time again we read in reports of one pilot having observed another doing something wrong, and nothing is said, and they fly it into the ground or run out of fuel, or descend below a minima, or not follow a clearance etc etc. And it's not an experience thing, it's commonly an attitude thing (or more correctly, "human factors"), and more often than not it's the experienced guys who come unstuck.
In the real world sometimes you get whacked by bad luck, and it happens whatever your experience level. If exercising superior judgement hasn't saved you from needing superior skill, and you need to bend a few rules, then let it be known so we can all learn from it.
Fine in theory, but in sticking to this as a hard and fast rule might mean not getting 90% of the work done, or even none at all for days at a time. Keep to it and the customer in all likelihood will have you booted off the job.
There is nothing inherently unsafe about flying in marginal weather below 500ft if you always keep a workable Plan B option to fall back on (and in my books, thinking IFR in a VFR machine doesn't constitute a Plan B, it's a Plan Z).
If the weather is really bad and you're entering the unsafe zone and decide to land or turn back, no problem, nobody will criticise you for that. But turning around only because you've got a bit less than 500ft to play with and the weather looks a bit iffy here and there, might earn you criticism in some instances for not showing enough "operational flexibility" (as some employers like to call it). You're tapped on the shoulder and told to start looking for another job, or just told to go.
I have never criticised any pilot for turning around, it's their decision to make and I will stand by it. I will express concern if they plough on into bad weather when other options are available. Time and time again we read in reports of one pilot having observed another doing something wrong, and nothing is said, and they fly it into the ground or run out of fuel, or descend below a minima, or not follow a clearance etc etc. And it's not an experience thing, it's commonly an attitude thing (or more correctly, "human factors"), and more often than not it's the experienced guys who come unstuck.
In the real world sometimes you get whacked by bad luck, and it happens whatever your experience level. If exercising superior judgement hasn't saved you from needing superior skill, and you need to bend a few rules, then let it be known so we can all learn from it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel:
is it because they are flying "in accordance with the visual rules" using "see and avoid"? At the point when you cannot operate in accordance with the visual rules you risk one of two consequences: disorientation; or CFIT.
Continuing your call for pilots to bend the rules only reinforces the opinion of those who believe that helicopter operations are dangerous.
Gullibell: (yes I am quoting selectively but that's the way these posts are read).
is advocacy for submitting to commercial pressure which you should be ashamed of.
I couldn't disagree more; it's the text "in marginal weather" which makes it unsafe.
I'm appalled by your complete disregard of rules; flight in cloud in a VFR machine whilst ignoring the operating rules is just stupid.
You appear to wear your disregard of rules as a badge-of-honour; your call for others to admit to doing the same only reinforces my view that your posts are all written "tongue in cheek". If not you might be best advised to delete them before your malign influence causes the accident rate to climb.
Still nobody has come up with any relevant number of incidents where people have flown into objects whilst remaining vfr...why is that ?
Continuing your call for pilots to bend the rules only reinforces the opinion of those who believe that helicopter operations are dangerous.
Gullibell: (yes I am quoting selectively but that's the way these posts are read).
"If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in."
Fine in theory, but in sticking to this as a hard and fast rule might mean not getting 90% of the work done, or even none at all for days at a time. Keep to it and the customer in all likelihood will have you booted off the job.
Fine in theory, but in sticking to this as a hard and fast rule might mean not getting 90% of the work done, or even none at all for days at a time. Keep to it and the customer in all likelihood will have you booted off the job.
There is nothing inherently unsafe about flying in marginal weather below 500ft
I'm appalled by your complete disregard of rules; flight in cloud in a VFR machine whilst ignoring the operating rules is just stupid.
You appear to wear your disregard of rules as a badge-of-honour; your call for others to admit to doing the same only reinforces my view that your posts are all written "tongue in cheek". If not you might be best advised to delete them before your malign influence causes the accident rate to climb.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in.You may be able to fly lower but the risk of wire/obstcle strike increases, and what happens if you then fly into a bank of cloud at 200 ft agl? You're really in it then.
The idea of promoting VFR flight below 500' in marginal conditions in the UK as an option is reckless and adds fuel to the fire for the NIMBY crowd. A willingness to fly in marginal weather is one of the contributing factors to the numerous inadvertent IMC/wire strike/CFIT incidents and accidents.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: clinging to the wreckage
Age: 54
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Tuppence worth
Very interesting discussion and IMHO I have to agree with "Mars" post above.
Just a couple of comments to add, we started off talking about R44 accident, The suggestion about punching up through cloud (albeit a tough choice) in something like a 44 is absolutely horrifying. dont mess about land the bloody thing or turn around.
As for pushing on in bad weather, I know a very good pilot who prides himself on never having had to turn back or not got to his destination, this is only because he makes a very good go/ no go decision, Get thereitis is a killer.
Not enough emphasis is placed on pre flight planning particularly with regard to weather. Instructors involve your students in the decision
I am not sure what can be done regards hirers/owners its all down to education I guess.
In the current PPL syllabus the 5 hours of sim. IR is a limited course and the student should be told this, this is not included to allow you to fly into a cloud. Apart from the fact that these aircraft are not certified for IFR flight and niether are the pilots, the student should also be briefed/demo on the loss of visual references, limits of human balance system, instability of A/C etc
Make agood go/ nogo decision if you really need to get there and it looks that marginal get the car out.
Fly safe
Just a couple of comments to add, we started off talking about R44 accident, The suggestion about punching up through cloud (albeit a tough choice) in something like a 44 is absolutely horrifying. dont mess about land the bloody thing or turn around.
As for pushing on in bad weather, I know a very good pilot who prides himself on never having had to turn back or not got to his destination, this is only because he makes a very good go/ no go decision, Get thereitis is a killer.
Not enough emphasis is placed on pre flight planning particularly with regard to weather. Instructors involve your students in the decision
I am not sure what can be done regards hirers/owners its all down to education I guess.
In the current PPL syllabus the 5 hours of sim. IR is a limited course and the student should be told this, this is not included to allow you to fly into a cloud. Apart from the fact that these aircraft are not certified for IFR flight and niether are the pilots, the student should also be briefed/demo on the loss of visual references, limits of human balance system, instability of A/C etc
Make agood go/ nogo decision if you really need to get there and it looks that marginal get the car out.
Fly safe
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pressonitis
I did my first land out a few months back. A mate of mine and I got within 5 miles of home that was it. Slower and slower, lower and lower in the increasing rain. We had a table booked, we were meeting friends - all too easy to press on.
The reality was interesting because we found ourselves overhead a microlight strip near Daventry. No sooner had we landed we were met by a charming and very welcoming farmers wife who immediately offered us a cup of tea followed by a lift home.
The next day was glorious.
As an ex-cop well used to dealing with grieving families, I could just imagine the questions, in bright sunshine - pile of bits in a smoking hole just up the road and 2 of us in the morgue - why didn't they put down? They had phones. Even if they were in the middle of nowhere, we could have found them quite easily and took them back in the morning to collect the aircraft. Why?
As it turned out, we did get to the restaurant on time and now have yet another interesting flying story to tell.
Take it from me, as OIC on the midair during the Kent Messenger Air Race back in the 70's between a Bolkow Monsun and a Piper Arrow, an air crash scene is ghastly. Memories only fade.
Remember also that a relative needs to identify you to the Coroners Officer.
Been there too..........
Hairyplane
The reality was interesting because we found ourselves overhead a microlight strip near Daventry. No sooner had we landed we were met by a charming and very welcoming farmers wife who immediately offered us a cup of tea followed by a lift home.
The next day was glorious.
As an ex-cop well used to dealing with grieving families, I could just imagine the questions, in bright sunshine - pile of bits in a smoking hole just up the road and 2 of us in the morgue - why didn't they put down? They had phones. Even if they were in the middle of nowhere, we could have found them quite easily and took them back in the morning to collect the aircraft. Why?
As it turned out, we did get to the restaurant on time and now have yet another interesting flying story to tell.
Take it from me, as OIC on the midair during the Kent Messenger Air Race back in the 70's between a Bolkow Monsun and a Piper Arrow, an air crash scene is ghastly. Memories only fade.
Remember also that a relative needs to identify you to the Coroners Officer.
Been there too..........
Hairyplane
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree (response to Gaseous, today).
IMHO there appears to be a honest answer to the one of the issues discussed in this forum. In my entry four pages back I believe I pretty much delivered the same sentiments. As a retired police officer ( a traffic officer for a number of years) in training a 'pre-amble ' was required without exception EVERY time one entered the motor vehicle. parts of which I believe are in fact MORE appropriate to us as heli pilots and as a very low hour (c.150) pilot of a 44 it serves me well to consider several sections of this 'pre-amble' when I walk up to a machine to head out flying. They include:
"...I will fly this machine according to a system... each feature of which is considered, in sequence, by me the pilot... To do this will require my utmost concentration, which is the full application of mind and body to a particular endeavour to the complete exclusion of everything NOT relevant to that endeavour and my endeavour today is to fly this helicopter SAFELY, SMOOTHLY, PROGRESSIVELY and WELL.(** Important to note the order listed, if these endeavours cannot all be achieved then there is no "safely"**) I will formulate my flight plan on three things what I can see, what I cannot see and circumstances I may reasonably expect to develop. By flying my helicopter to this system I will ensure that the helicopter will be in the right place in the air, travelling at the right speed and... with the ability to safely and expeditiously return the helicopter to the ground in any event that compromises the integrity of the system."
Granted a few additions added to suit the occasion but fundamentally I believe, in particularly for us low hour pilots (and I consider <1000 to be low) that the consideration of these points will only help to prolong the joy of flying helicopters within the climate of the UK
DT
"...I will fly this machine according to a system... each feature of which is considered, in sequence, by me the pilot... To do this will require my utmost concentration, which is the full application of mind and body to a particular endeavour to the complete exclusion of everything NOT relevant to that endeavour and my endeavour today is to fly this helicopter SAFELY, SMOOTHLY, PROGRESSIVELY and WELL.(** Important to note the order listed, if these endeavours cannot all be achieved then there is no "safely"**) I will formulate my flight plan on three things what I can see, what I cannot see and circumstances I may reasonably expect to develop. By flying my helicopter to this system I will ensure that the helicopter will be in the right place in the air, travelling at the right speed and... with the ability to safely and expeditiously return the helicopter to the ground in any event that compromises the integrity of the system."
Granted a few additions added to suit the occasion but fundamentally I believe, in particularly for us low hour pilots (and I consider <1000 to be low) that the consideration of these points will only help to prolong the joy of flying helicopters within the climate of the UK
DT
What IS interesting is that there is a clear split between pilots who truly believe that flying below 500ft under cloud is dangerous and those that truly believe it is safer than trying to maintain 500ft. It would be interesting to see how the cpl,s feel versus the ppl,s ? If you are going for a jolly in poor weather why bother ? If you have a job to do i do not think you would last long turning back at the first sign of marginal weather . Most flights in the UK if long distance will have bits of them which are not great and just saying you are not going to fly in less than 500ft regardless is not realistic. The rules are there for guidance and cannot cover every scenario !!!!
Stick at 70mph on an empty motorway if you wish to , but do not say that anyone in a modern car doing 80 has a death wish !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dato R44.....and for those of us in England..a translation ?!!!
Flingwings....and tell me when can you guarantee good viz oop north ? Also if you bothered read my mail i have always said you should NOT go low in bad viz. .....i could get to know you better tho,..!!
Stick at 70mph on an empty motorway if you wish to , but do not say that anyone in a modern car doing 80 has a death wish !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dato R44.....and for those of us in England..a translation ?!!!
Flingwings....and tell me when can you guarantee good viz oop north ? Also if you bothered read my mail i have always said you should NOT go low in bad viz. .....i could get to know you better tho,..!!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
Thanks for the assessment about what I'd be comfortable about flying wise when you know absolutely nothing about me. I've never said that flight below 500' is dangerous, only that in some cicumstances it would be illegal. However, flight at low level and/or low speed in marginal viz and/or deteorating wx is a path for the foolish/suicidal!
I'd figured upon your response so here's the second paragraph from trainingcom..........
' A more detailed study reveals that the majority of flights involved pilots trying to return home/base, over terrain that they were reasonably familiar with and in weather that was forecast, or known to be unsuitable. Indications are that these pilots continued en-route, TRYING to stay below the cloud in POOR visibility and had not deliberately entered cloud to practise their IF skills'
Sound familiar?
Sorry Nigel but you cannot have your cake and eat it! Weather is forecast and observations aren't always accurate or correct. In poor weather you cannot guarantee good viz or cloud base, and if you cannot guarantee it will be SAFE should you be setting off?
Maybe thats why an amendement to the ANO has specified a min viz for VFR PPL pilots as of 15/3/07 ( ANO statutory Instrument 2007/number 274)
Ok Nigel, I'll take the bait. What figures do YOU use height and viz wise in deciding when to turn back? How do you decide what is SAFE for you? And how do you propose to transpose your/others judgement abilities to those with less practical experience? Alternatively what limits would you apply to Pilots? PPL sub 500TT, sub 1000TT, night rated? CPL?
I'm SPIFR qualified and current. There are still days I won't fly or can't fly legally. I aim to retire
Ps Jaffer and vage if your reading this thread and considering trying to push on as suggested CFIT, Elaine and Kim (respectively)will be the least of your worries
Thanks for the assessment about what I'd be comfortable about flying wise when you know absolutely nothing about me. I've never said that flight below 500' is dangerous, only that in some cicumstances it would be illegal. However, flight at low level and/or low speed in marginal viz and/or deteorating wx is a path for the foolish/suicidal!
I'd figured upon your response so here's the second paragraph from trainingcom..........
' A more detailed study reveals that the majority of flights involved pilots trying to return home/base, over terrain that they were reasonably familiar with and in weather that was forecast, or known to be unsuitable. Indications are that these pilots continued en-route, TRYING to stay below the cloud in POOR visibility and had not deliberately entered cloud to practise their IF skills'
Sound familiar?
Sorry Nigel but you cannot have your cake and eat it! Weather is forecast and observations aren't always accurate or correct. In poor weather you cannot guarantee good viz or cloud base, and if you cannot guarantee it will be SAFE should you be setting off?
Maybe thats why an amendement to the ANO has specified a min viz for VFR PPL pilots as of 15/3/07 ( ANO statutory Instrument 2007/number 274)
Ok Nigel, I'll take the bait. What figures do YOU use height and viz wise in deciding when to turn back? How do you decide what is SAFE for you? And how do you propose to transpose your/others judgement abilities to those with less practical experience? Alternatively what limits would you apply to Pilots? PPL sub 500TT, sub 1000TT, night rated? CPL?
I'm SPIFR qualified and current. There are still days I won't fly or can't fly legally. I aim to retire
Ps Jaffer and vage if your reading this thread and considering trying to push on as suggested CFIT, Elaine and Kim (respectively)will be the least of your worries
Last edited by Flingingwings; 14th Aug 2007 at 11:12.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Nigel 
understood - this little preamble was required by all traffic officers when they sat in the drivers seat of a patrol car b4 driving off - it was voiced by the student to focus his attention on what he was about to do .. I consider that parts of this blurb serve me well when getting into the right hand seat of the 44...
DT
understood - this little preamble was required by all traffic officers when they sat in the drivers seat of a patrol car b4 driving off - it was voiced by the student to focus his attention on what he was about to do .. I consider that parts of this blurb serve me well when getting into the right hand seat of the 44...DT
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hairy,
that's a really good story, and the next day being glorious is all too common.
I have searched for more than one dead friend on a sunny day.
I believe that one of the problems we are up against here is identifying that point in time/space where it is time to turn around/take another route/land/postpone/cancel.....whatever option the pilot chooses. It appears that we have a few who are so confident in their ability that identification of this point is given a low priority.
I too, have been in that situation where I did not identify that point based on the weather around me and the "importance" of the task until very late. I found a way to make it so much easier - when things are not going to plan, I continually ask myself "can I justify what I'm doing right now"? "If I have an incident right now and have to justify to all my peers (not to mention the legal system, military or civil) why I was here, will I look/feel like a pratt?
On many occasions, that question has prompted me to change the plan good and early, way before any rules are stretched or broken.
It works for me.
that's a really good story, and the next day being glorious is all too common.
I have searched for more than one dead friend on a sunny day.
I believe that one of the problems we are up against here is identifying that point in time/space where it is time to turn around/take another route/land/postpone/cancel.....whatever option the pilot chooses. It appears that we have a few who are so confident in their ability that identification of this point is given a low priority.
I too, have been in that situation where I did not identify that point based on the weather around me and the "importance" of the task until very late. I found a way to make it so much easier - when things are not going to plan, I continually ask myself "can I justify what I'm doing right now"? "If I have an incident right now and have to justify to all my peers (not to mention the legal system, military or civil) why I was here, will I look/feel like a pratt?
On many occasions, that question has prompted me to change the plan good and early, way before any rules are stretched or broken.
It works for me.
Last edited by hihover; 14th Aug 2007 at 13:55.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that Mr CAA would say 'em rules is the rules! and when they were devised it was not envisaged that they would be interpreted as guidance! Would the 500' rule not be applicable in all VFR flight (no counting landing or take-off), if you were at flying at 200' agl "scud running" popping over pylons and flying over built up areas, would the task warrant this sort of flying?
Personally my worse flying experience was in IMC, at night at the end of a long day and that was on an approved IFR flight, the mixed messages between my inner ear and the instruments that I had to fight were nothing like driving too fast on the motorway.
To run the risk of inadvertent IMC because of pressonitis is reckless, as for the first signs of marginal weather and turning back, that sounds exactly when you should be turning back or diverting, if indeed the weather forecast has been wrong and don't be guided by ones interpretation of the VFR limits and rule 5. Flying below 500' agl whilst not always dangerous is often illegal and is best left to the military who practice this continually and not just every now and again when the weather deteriorates, which is just when you don't want to be discovering how tricky a skill low level flight is.
Personally my worse flying experience was in IMC, at night at the end of a long day and that was on an approved IFR flight, the mixed messages between my inner ear and the instruments that I had to fight were nothing like driving too fast on the motorway.
To run the risk of inadvertent IMC because of pressonitis is reckless, as for the first signs of marginal weather and turning back, that sounds exactly when you should be turning back or diverting, if indeed the weather forecast has been wrong and don't be guided by ones interpretation of the VFR limits and rule 5. Flying below 500' agl whilst not always dangerous is often illegal and is best left to the military who practice this continually and not just every now and again when the weather deteriorates, which is just when you don't want to be discovering how tricky a skill low level flight is.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Florida
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climb into Cloud!!! No!!!
As a relatively inexperienced Commercial Pilot with an IR (2,500hrs) I can state that with all certainty that one of the most un-nerving expereinces that I have had to date is being in cloud at 3,000 MSL in mountainous terrain in a non IFR and equiped aircraft (Bell 206).
We shot a Localiser approach (we were lucky to have approach plates in a pilot bag) using a Vor reciever after 25 minutes of flight, breaking out at less than 400ft AGL, about 600 feet right of the centre line.
From my experience, please do not climb up into cloud if you are flying an R44 - LAND you are in a helicopter they can land almost anywhere!
Frankly it was a very frightening experience and not one I ever want to repeat, we were lucky to arrive on terra firma in one piece. We got Sh#tfaced that night.
I firmly believe that a pilot who isnt formally instrument trained who then enters prolonged IMC in a machine such as a 206 or R44 stands a VERY high chance of becoming another discussion point on this board -please learn from other peoples tragic mistakes and if the weather is bad - Land or dont even start the engine!!!
Geoff
We shot a Localiser approach (we were lucky to have approach plates in a pilot bag) using a Vor reciever after 25 minutes of flight, breaking out at less than 400ft AGL, about 600 feet right of the centre line.
From my experience, please do not climb up into cloud if you are flying an R44 - LAND you are in a helicopter they can land almost anywhere!
Frankly it was a very frightening experience and not one I ever want to repeat, we were lucky to arrive on terra firma in one piece. We got Sh#tfaced that night.
I firmly believe that a pilot who isnt formally instrument trained who then enters prolonged IMC in a machine such as a 206 or R44 stands a VERY high chance of becoming another discussion point on this board -please learn from other peoples tragic mistakes and if the weather is bad - Land or dont even start the engine!!!
Geoff
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South West
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel
I hear what you say about 'break the 500ft Rule if it's gonna prevent you from entering cloud'
However, I can't see how deliberately setting off into a situation where you predict (Or is evident from MET data) that you will need to descend below 500ft to remain clear of cloud can really be encouraged.
Surely, if your flight became subject of a complaint from a member of public or incident then the C.A.A's Legal Team may interpret this action as negligent thus rendering you liable to prosecution and or the possible suspension of you licence ?
I hear what you say about 'break the 500ft Rule if it's gonna prevent you from entering cloud'
However, I can't see how deliberately setting off into a situation where you predict (Or is evident from MET data) that you will need to descend below 500ft to remain clear of cloud can really be encouraged.
Surely, if your flight became subject of a complaint from a member of public or incident then the C.A.A's Legal Team may interpret this action as negligent thus rendering you liable to prosecution and or the possible suspension of you licence ?
Last edited by theavionicsbloke; 15th Aug 2007 at 00:21.
I am a little concerned that there seems to be members of the helicopter community who are willing to push on in weather where they can't maintain 500ft from obstacles.
I can see Nigel's point about remaining in good viz below cloud rather than scud running at 500ft but that good visibility should be used to turn round or land not press on.
However, what appears to be a letterbox can lead you into further dangers especially if downwind where a turn away from the high ground can result in you being blown into it. Hills can also give you false visual horizons which can be deadly if you don't have an A/H.
In a past career I have entered cloud to hover taxi up into the hills to rescue someone but you have to be very very aware of what you are doing and have briefed yourself and crew of all the possibilities before entering the cloud. It is easy to get disoriented and you have to recognise the signs and abandon the attempt.
I now work in an environment which is very safety conscious and pushing limits is a definite no no. If the weather is below limits we dont go or if the oil company wants us to give it a try we will - but on reaching the decision point usually 3/4nm and helideck height +50ft with no visual contact we go around and head back to the beach.
With passengers or loved ones on board I would never do what Nigel advocates. You may get away with it but there are plenty of suckers gaps which if you are not trained to do an IMC abort you will kill yourself. I have been in that position several times during my military career and each time have survived due to good training and good planning.
An example would be following the A9 in Scotland trying to get to Aviemore. Cloud base coming down so we were forced lower and lower until we would have been a danger to trucks on the road. No option to turn as valley too narrow so IMC abort done as briefed on heading provided by co-pilot who knew orientation of valley back to max angle of climb speed with full power. Check Doppler meter for ground speed nearly zero so going up as planned rad op gives advice on high ground in area climb to MSA and try to find a gap near Aviemore no luck so ONLY option RTB even though there was an injured climber on the hill. As a/c captain you do not risk yourself or crew with reckless attempts to reach him but he was rescued a little later by MRT.
For you less experienced non IR pilots do not press on land or turn around while you can. I have been to too many a/c crashes and most of the civilian ones have been serviceable when they hit the ground.
HF
I can see Nigel's point about remaining in good viz below cloud rather than scud running at 500ft but that good visibility should be used to turn round or land not press on.
However, what appears to be a letterbox can lead you into further dangers especially if downwind where a turn away from the high ground can result in you being blown into it. Hills can also give you false visual horizons which can be deadly if you don't have an A/H.
In a past career I have entered cloud to hover taxi up into the hills to rescue someone but you have to be very very aware of what you are doing and have briefed yourself and crew of all the possibilities before entering the cloud. It is easy to get disoriented and you have to recognise the signs and abandon the attempt.
I now work in an environment which is very safety conscious and pushing limits is a definite no no. If the weather is below limits we dont go or if the oil company wants us to give it a try we will - but on reaching the decision point usually 3/4nm and helideck height +50ft with no visual contact we go around and head back to the beach.
With passengers or loved ones on board I would never do what Nigel advocates. You may get away with it but there are plenty of suckers gaps which if you are not trained to do an IMC abort you will kill yourself. I have been in that position several times during my military career and each time have survived due to good training and good planning.
An example would be following the A9 in Scotland trying to get to Aviemore. Cloud base coming down so we were forced lower and lower until we would have been a danger to trucks on the road. No option to turn as valley too narrow so IMC abort done as briefed on heading provided by co-pilot who knew orientation of valley back to max angle of climb speed with full power. Check Doppler meter for ground speed nearly zero so going up as planned rad op gives advice on high ground in area climb to MSA and try to find a gap near Aviemore no luck so ONLY option RTB even though there was an injured climber on the hill. As a/c captain you do not risk yourself or crew with reckless attempts to reach him but he was rescued a little later by MRT.
For you less experienced non IR pilots do not press on land or turn around while you can. I have been to too many a/c crashes and most of the civilian ones have been serviceable when they hit the ground.
HF