Bad weather accidents and GPS
Thread Starter
Bad weather accidents and GPS
I have a theory that many of the recent poor weather (and night) 'CFIT' helicopter accidents that have occurred in the UK are indirectly the result of having GPS moving map equipment installed. My point being that in 'the good old days' before GPS, the pilot was so busy simply navigating from A to B and shuffling maps that even relatively small visibility reductions made the task very difficult. It was just so much easier to make the decision to land or divert than it was to struggle trying to work out exactly where you were.
After GPS moving maps, brilliant as they are, all pilots of any experience level now have much more available mental capacity as the navigation workload is almost non-existant. Couple this with terrain information and there is a serious risk of pushing on further into poor weather until we encounter our own workload threshold and call it a day - trouble is, the weather conditions when we now call it a day are significantly worse than they used to be. Therefore, some pilots workload thresholds exceed there ability thresholds with occasionally disasterous results.
Discuss.
JJ
After GPS moving maps, brilliant as they are, all pilots of any experience level now have much more available mental capacity as the navigation workload is almost non-existant. Couple this with terrain information and there is a serious risk of pushing on further into poor weather until we encounter our own workload threshold and call it a day - trouble is, the weather conditions when we now call it a day are significantly worse than they used to be. Therefore, some pilots workload thresholds exceed there ability thresholds with occasionally disasterous results.
Discuss.
JJ
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Depends on the information that the GPS system can provide. If it is intelligent enough to show you that you're about to run in to a tower or the ground, then it probably helps.
If it just gives a line on a flat display, probably not much help.
If it just gives a line on a flat display, probably not much help.
I fail to see how an increase in situational awareness would contribute significantly to accidents. The CFIT accidents that I have been to were the result of the pilot not being where he thought he was. Granted these were in mountainous locations that did not involve man made obstructions. Interesting question!
GPS or no GPS....end result is the same once the decision to chicken out is postponed till it is not the pilot that makes the decision. Upon venturing past the decision point it is too late to affect the outcome. The key is in being able to see the DP approaching and being prepared, equipped, and able to make the decision prior to, at, but not beyond the DP.
Nothing beats looking out the window...and being able to see your surrounds in such a fashion so as to be able to avoid obstacles to safe flight and complete a safe landing even if that particular location is undesirable, illegal, or darned awkward.
Inpromptu landings have provided some of the richest experiences of my flying career....how else would one meet the people one does otherwise.
Nothing beats looking out the window...and being able to see your surrounds in such a fashion so as to be able to avoid obstacles to safe flight and complete a safe landing even if that particular location is undesirable, illegal, or darned awkward.
Inpromptu landings have provided some of the richest experiences of my flying career....how else would one meet the people one does otherwise.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: With my head in the clouds
Age: 54
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is actually some research out there on the use of digital displays in GA/light aircraft, though I'm not sure how much is published as of yet. jellycopter touches on what is turning out to be a big issue - when using the analog systems, pilots were responsible for developing their own mental model of the flight environment (i.e. waypoints, terrrain, etc.) but the new systems appear to allow pilots to offload the maintenance of these models to an external actor (the digital nav system), thereby reducing SA.
I think JJ has a very valid point and he is not the only experienced pilot with an opinion like this, several have discussed this with me this year.
GPS gives you great positional awareness, not situational awareness. The big picture still matters but pilots now have a means of navigation which when it works is great. A sudden "No GPS position available" or worse still (in my opinion) DR caption in poor weather or while IMC can lead to an equally sudden huge increase in workload. I wonder (and intend trying to find out) how many accidents (or unheard of incidents) have occured due to pilots hitting direct to and blindly following the line because they didn't know any better towards rising ground and low cloud or poor visibilty. I suspect more than a few.
The GPS is great because if you are aware of what is ahead you don't need to look in at a chart at a point in the flight when you couldn't do so anyway if the vis is that poor. The next time you find yourself low and slow and following the GPS ask yourself what would I do now if it went off.
GS
GPS gives you great positional awareness, not situational awareness. The big picture still matters but pilots now have a means of navigation which when it works is great. A sudden "No GPS position available" or worse still (in my opinion) DR caption in poor weather or while IMC can lead to an equally sudden huge increase in workload. I wonder (and intend trying to find out) how many accidents (or unheard of incidents) have occured due to pilots hitting direct to and blindly following the line because they didn't know any better towards rising ground and low cloud or poor visibilty. I suspect more than a few.
The GPS is great because if you are aware of what is ahead you don't need to look in at a chart at a point in the flight when you couldn't do so anyway if the vis is that poor. The next time you find yourself low and slow and following the GPS ask yourself what would I do now if it went off.
GS
I think Jelly has it pretty much right.
Without GPS, you have to navigate by reference to visual features. In bad weather, you have to go lower (which substantially reduces your ability to use visual features), and the visibility gets much worse, which does ditto. You lose the ability to navigate visually long before you before you reach the stage where you are going to lose the visual references needed to be able to maintain stable flight, so without gps you will tend to turn back in good time. With gps you might continue, relying solely on the gps for navigation, until you lose all visual references and crash.
But I would not say this means we shouldn't have gps. GPS has many advantages. With any technology there come pitfalls as well as benefits, and the pitfalls have to be taken into account when you are flying. I say when YOU are flying because I mean its the individual's responsibility to use the equipment appropriately.
We invented cars, but cars can be driven down a motorway in thick fog at 90mph resulting in an accident. Does that mean we should ban cars? All we can do is to have good practice, rules and training (sadly lacking in the case of cars!). At least when you demolish your helicopter, its only your own vehicle that gets taken out, as opposed to the motorway scenario.
Are we as an industry doing our bit? When was the last time you reported someone who just appeared out of the mist hover taxying over the airfield boundary. Maybe they did their best and just got caught out on the exceptional day, or maybe they make a habit of it, in which case loss of licence / jail is better than dead passengers.
HC
Without GPS, you have to navigate by reference to visual features. In bad weather, you have to go lower (which substantially reduces your ability to use visual features), and the visibility gets much worse, which does ditto. You lose the ability to navigate visually long before you before you reach the stage where you are going to lose the visual references needed to be able to maintain stable flight, so without gps you will tend to turn back in good time. With gps you might continue, relying solely on the gps for navigation, until you lose all visual references and crash.
But I would not say this means we shouldn't have gps. GPS has many advantages. With any technology there come pitfalls as well as benefits, and the pitfalls have to be taken into account when you are flying. I say when YOU are flying because I mean its the individual's responsibility to use the equipment appropriately.
We invented cars, but cars can be driven down a motorway in thick fog at 90mph resulting in an accident. Does that mean we should ban cars? All we can do is to have good practice, rules and training (sadly lacking in the case of cars!). At least when you demolish your helicopter, its only your own vehicle that gets taken out, as opposed to the motorway scenario.
Are we as an industry doing our bit? When was the last time you reported someone who just appeared out of the mist hover taxying over the airfield boundary. Maybe they did their best and just got caught out on the exceptional day, or maybe they make a habit of it, in which case loss of licence / jail is better than dead passengers.
HC
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strangely I heard the same theory yesterday, never gave it a second thought. Love all the GPS info and the ability to get places but I always have put Weather first. GPS is just my backup for getting to a place.
Therefore for me, I may stick my nose into the sky, but never venture farther than its safe to fly. Since Im in EMS we usually always launch but have the option of cancelling anytime things get dicey. GPS is also helpful then if I need to know a place I can divert. Worse case for me if I did get in over my head, is to just sit it down, get on the sat phone and say we will be here till its better. Our missions are rarely over 100-150 miles so the geography and weather patterns are pretty well known.
Therefore for me, I may stick my nose into the sky, but never venture farther than its safe to fly. Since Im in EMS we usually always launch but have the option of cancelling anytime things get dicey. GPS is also helpful then if I need to know a place I can divert. Worse case for me if I did get in over my head, is to just sit it down, get on the sat phone and say we will be here till its better. Our missions are rarely over 100-150 miles so the geography and weather patterns are pretty well known.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Age: 56
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning JJ
I can't remember the last time you started a post. Something must have been the catalyst!
As you know, like lots of pilots, I'm a big fan of GPS, and some of the one's I use have terrain, it doesnt mean though that pilot's should not regularly refer to their map. Mine is always close to hand and when I'm undertaking a new trip I study the landscape, route etc prior to departure to the point that "her indoors" takes the proverbial out of me. She thinks I'm a secret cartographer!
I think pushing on into poor wx is a seperate issue and comes down to experience, airmanship and regular training. I've undertaken lots of post PPL training (as you know!) with a lot of this focussed on bad weather operations. It still amazes me that there is very little "approved" post PPL training that can be done to teach pilots proper decision making - especially where weather is concerned.
On the basis that most of us without an IR should be flying in VMC, the simple rule should be if your visibility is reducing to a point that you are having to reduce your speed considerably, then maybe it's time to put it down somewhere! Maybe when your flying at 50% of your normal operating cruise (because of reducing vis), you should be landing - or some similiar equation.
Another element is also to do with a combination of factors. I recently attended the heli sfatey evening at leeds and was surprised at how many people were unsure of the "rules" regarding putting down in a field somewhere. Other pilots rarely ventured far from their local aerodrome and only a small number of people raised there hands out of many to acknowledge that they knew that the TAF & METAR formats were changing on 5th November.
The point I'm making is that some people fly heli's regularly, but may not be activeley involved, in the heli community. If they were, they might be more aware of lots of factors that would contribute to helicopter safety in general.
Finally, regarding night operations - I can't comment too much as I'm only half way through my night training, but one thing is clear to me. The 5 hours instrument appreciation training which is part of the PPL syllabus, and is done on foggles, is a complete waste of time.
By the way have you seen the new Garmin 695. Looks great!!!!!!
Joel
I can't remember the last time you started a post. Something must have been the catalyst!
As you know, like lots of pilots, I'm a big fan of GPS, and some of the one's I use have terrain, it doesnt mean though that pilot's should not regularly refer to their map. Mine is always close to hand and when I'm undertaking a new trip I study the landscape, route etc prior to departure to the point that "her indoors" takes the proverbial out of me. She thinks I'm a secret cartographer!
I think pushing on into poor wx is a seperate issue and comes down to experience, airmanship and regular training. I've undertaken lots of post PPL training (as you know!) with a lot of this focussed on bad weather operations. It still amazes me that there is very little "approved" post PPL training that can be done to teach pilots proper decision making - especially where weather is concerned.
On the basis that most of us without an IR should be flying in VMC, the simple rule should be if your visibility is reducing to a point that you are having to reduce your speed considerably, then maybe it's time to put it down somewhere! Maybe when your flying at 50% of your normal operating cruise (because of reducing vis), you should be landing - or some similiar equation.
Another element is also to do with a combination of factors. I recently attended the heli sfatey evening at leeds and was surprised at how many people were unsure of the "rules" regarding putting down in a field somewhere. Other pilots rarely ventured far from their local aerodrome and only a small number of people raised there hands out of many to acknowledge that they knew that the TAF & METAR formats were changing on 5th November.
The point I'm making is that some people fly heli's regularly, but may not be activeley involved, in the heli community. If they were, they might be more aware of lots of factors that would contribute to helicopter safety in general.
Finally, regarding night operations - I can't comment too much as I'm only half way through my night training, but one thing is clear to me. The 5 hours instrument appreciation training which is part of the PPL syllabus, and is done on foggles, is a complete waste of time.
By the way have you seen the new Garmin 695. Looks great!!!!!!
Joel
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I originally learned my map-reading in the left seat of a fast-moving rally-car at night where turning the map to track-up was a complete no-no and you had to be on top of your game in a vehicle that changed direction every couple of hundred yards. Getting on top of it was an intensely satisfying experience and that satisfaction has remained with me to this day. (It did make for an interesting conflict with early Flight Instructors when I found it almost impossible to read the chart any way but North Up but we got over it!!)
After nearly twenty years of hacking my way along from piston-engined singles via turbine singles and light turbine twins to my present FMS and Moving Map Display equipped ride, the most satisfying thing I've done in a long time after a rush of recent visits into Battersea (EGLW) is to be able to follow the H3 at night by looking out the window and recognising the various landmarks along the route with the Map Display turned down (rather than off) and only the paper chart on my lap.
To make a point, the question I ask is - "Do pilots not derive any personal or professional satisfaction from being able to find their way from A to B along a route they decided upon before they departed while knowing where they are during the trip?"
Or are more recently trained pilots simply growing up on a diet of digital wizardry (bit like my kids and all things electronic) with an attendant loss of ability in the basics?
Or am I just being an old fart?
After nearly twenty years of hacking my way along from piston-engined singles via turbine singles and light turbine twins to my present FMS and Moving Map Display equipped ride, the most satisfying thing I've done in a long time after a rush of recent visits into Battersea (EGLW) is to be able to follow the H3 at night by looking out the window and recognising the various landmarks along the route with the Map Display turned down (rather than off) and only the paper chart on my lap.
To make a point, the question I ask is - "Do pilots not derive any personal or professional satisfaction from being able to find their way from A to B along a route they decided upon before they departed while knowing where they are during the trip?"
Or are more recently trained pilots simply growing up on a diet of digital wizardry (bit like my kids and all things electronic) with an attendant loss of ability in the basics?
Or am I just being an old fart?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is 5 hours training with foggels a waste of time?
With a gps fitted in a helicopter you should have a lot more time to look out the window to make a better decision about the wether Poor airmanship is no excuse to blame a gps .
FLY SAFE LEVO.
With a gps fitted in a helicopter you should have a lot more time to look out the window to make a better decision about the wether Poor airmanship is no excuse to blame a gps .
FLY SAFE LEVO.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: With my head in the clouds
Age: 54
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Or are more recently trained pilots simply growing up on a diet of digital wizardry... with an attendant loss of ability in the basics?"
This was what I was getting at...
Several years ago Middle Tennessee State University went to all-digital cockpits in their FW trainers marrying this change with revised training protocols combining the PP and IR curriculum. They found that the new digital curriculum had different bottlenecks (repeated lessons/flights) than the traditional system. One such bottleneck in the traditional system was cross-country navigation, pilots trained in the analog cockpit normally needed extra time but those trained in the digital breezed right through. So I have another friend at a different uni that did the same shortly after. That program is currently in the process of gathering data on efficacy of training and have found that by IR pilots trained in the digital systems are "practically unable to use the analog instruments [ie perform navigation tasks without GPS, etc.] compared to their ability to use glass." I've observed in the simulator these students maintained their SA externally rather than internally. Not a big issue now as these students are still in the training environment by this is something we should keep our eye on as they progress through the industry.
Not to bash GPS or other digital systems, I think bringing more data/cues into the cockpit, especially regarding terrain and obstructions is a good thing. I just think we need to be aware of the impications of our decisions.
Reference the GPS question, I was a radar controller when GPS was initially introduced into GA aircraft. We immediately saw a jump in airspace busts - pilots would punch in airport A and airport B then fly the straight line between, disregarding any restricted, MOA and Class B airspace along the way. It became quite easy to recognize who was navigating in this manner, allowing us to have escorts in place PRIOR to the most aggregious violations (which at the time would result in confiscation of the aircraft and detention of any on board). The increase in national security TFRs has helped with awareness but violations continue to occur.
Shappell and Weigman have done an HF review of US GA CFIT accidents, it's available on their website (www.hfacs.com, look under publications). They report a common pattern to the CFIT accidents that wasn't present in the non-CFIT events, it's an interesting read and might add to this discussion.
This was what I was getting at...
Several years ago Middle Tennessee State University went to all-digital cockpits in their FW trainers marrying this change with revised training protocols combining the PP and IR curriculum. They found that the new digital curriculum had different bottlenecks (repeated lessons/flights) than the traditional system. One such bottleneck in the traditional system was cross-country navigation, pilots trained in the analog cockpit normally needed extra time but those trained in the digital breezed right through. So I have another friend at a different uni that did the same shortly after. That program is currently in the process of gathering data on efficacy of training and have found that by IR pilots trained in the digital systems are "practically unable to use the analog instruments [ie perform navigation tasks without GPS, etc.] compared to their ability to use glass." I've observed in the simulator these students maintained their SA externally rather than internally. Not a big issue now as these students are still in the training environment by this is something we should keep our eye on as they progress through the industry.
Not to bash GPS or other digital systems, I think bringing more data/cues into the cockpit, especially regarding terrain and obstructions is a good thing. I just think we need to be aware of the impications of our decisions.
Reference the GPS question, I was a radar controller when GPS was initially introduced into GA aircraft. We immediately saw a jump in airspace busts - pilots would punch in airport A and airport B then fly the straight line between, disregarding any restricted, MOA and Class B airspace along the way. It became quite easy to recognize who was navigating in this manner, allowing us to have escorts in place PRIOR to the most aggregious violations (which at the time would result in confiscation of the aircraft and detention of any on board). The increase in national security TFRs has helped with awareness but violations continue to occur.
Shappell and Weigman have done an HF review of US GA CFIT accidents, it's available on their website (www.hfacs.com, look under publications). They report a common pattern to the CFIT accidents that wasn't present in the non-CFIT events, it's an interesting read and might add to this discussion.
Last edited by jolly girl; 15th Nov 2008 at 15:03. Reason: Correction, should have been Middle Tennessee State University, bottlenecks and x-country planning
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think we all agree GPS is a useful tool, but the danger is in becoming too reliant on it.
I think VeeAny is spot on when he makes the distinction between "positional awareness" and "situational awareness".
Its easy to get lulled into a false sense of security when you know exactly where you are on the map, although you may not know where the nearest wires/big tree/hill etc is. To retain control, you also need a good attitude reference, especially in a helicopter without full stabilisation (attitude hold). Its very easy to lose the horizon in deteriorating weather, even though you may know where you are, and can see the ground below. Disorientation can come very rapidly thereafter, especially if you start to manoeuvre, either to find a landing spot or to turn around.
I agree 100% with JTobias - I think there needs to be much better training in terms of recognizing the onset of weather limitations, and what to do when it happens. If you read CAP 780 aviation safety review 2008, or CAA paper 2007/03 "helicopter flight in degraded visual conditions", it quickly becomes apparent that press-onitis/inadvertent imc/disorientation is a factor in a huge chunk of the accident database for small helicopters.
I think VeeAny is spot on when he makes the distinction between "positional awareness" and "situational awareness".
Its easy to get lulled into a false sense of security when you know exactly where you are on the map, although you may not know where the nearest wires/big tree/hill etc is. To retain control, you also need a good attitude reference, especially in a helicopter without full stabilisation (attitude hold). Its very easy to lose the horizon in deteriorating weather, even though you may know where you are, and can see the ground below. Disorientation can come very rapidly thereafter, especially if you start to manoeuvre, either to find a landing spot or to turn around.
I agree 100% with JTobias - I think there needs to be much better training in terms of recognizing the onset of weather limitations, and what to do when it happens. If you read CAP 780 aviation safety review 2008, or CAA paper 2007/03 "helicopter flight in degraded visual conditions", it quickly becomes apparent that press-onitis/inadvertent imc/disorientation is a factor in a huge chunk of the accident database for small helicopters.
JTobias i totally agree with your comment re lack of training after ppl re flying into bad weather , precautionary landings etc most of us have learnt this by trial and error and sadly not all come out the other side of this process. Probably like you my first helicopter had no navaids at all so you had to use a map ( i did land near peoples gardens a couple of times and ask where exactly i was !!) but i am also guilty of jumping in all of a rush and setting of down that line on the screen without any idea of where the "low level " route would be , thereby sometimes making my life far more difficult . If i had looked at the map properly i would have seen that a route 10 miles to the west would have avoided the wooded hills 
JJ good point but you are not advocating scrapping gps ....so what do YOU think ? I made a point , roundly condemned , in anothe r thread about more IR training .....not to go into that , but would you not think that at least one actual sorty into poor ( imc before you jump on me ) wx with a 180out of it , and a prec landing etc would be a useful exercise for all ppl,s ??
JJ good point but you are not advocating scrapping gps ....so what do YOU think ? I made a point , roundly condemned , in anothe r thread about more IR training .....not to go into that , but would you not think that at least one actual sorty into poor ( imc before you jump on me ) wx with a 180out of it , and a prec landing etc would be a useful exercise for all ppl,s ??
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
was surprised at how many people were unsure of the "rules" regarding putting down in a field somewhere.
Rules are if your gonna continue and die,you set it down. If someone decides to throw rules at you at least it wont be at your memorial.
Very fortunate in the states as I have had to land in more than one farm or property in 38 years of helicopter flying. Never had a problem. Understandbly in the middle of downtown Dallas is going to get someone upset and they will thumb through all the books to find something you violated, rather than be helpful. Let me say if I had too I certainly would not think twice in landing in downtown anywhere. Rule book boys can send me a letter.
Thread Starter
Nigel
I tend to agree with you about getting PPLs to fly in 'actual' conditions and whenever the opportunity presents itself for me to get someone less experienced into the spare seat of an A109, I take it. Turn off the SAS and let the fun begin! However,that is off topic so I'll stop there.
As regards your question "you are not advocating scrapping gps ....so what do YOU think ? . Good point. Not really sure. In order to prevent more burdensome legislation being forced in as a reaction to yet more 'accidents' happening is for the wider helicopter community to educate the less experienced.
Gary's Safety Evenings are a good starting point but on the whole I consider these to be probably 'preaching to the converted'.
Optional Post-PPL(H) training leading to an enhanced qualification that permits flight in lower weather limits might be worth considering. The regulators wouldn't let someone fly at night without proper training, yet they let people fly in crud without necessarily having had any specific training. Many PPLs conduct their training in 8/8 Blue sky without ever seeing cloud or flight without a defined horizon.
As a proposal for discussion - The VFR rules as they stand already have a structure which would be easy to implement. A 'basic' PPL(H) could be allowed to fly in 5km vis. After a 5 hour 'poor weather appreciation course' flown in real poor weather (shouldn't be too difficult to achieve in our wonderful climate) the vis restriction would be lifted to COCWSIS and 1500m.
Finally, the point of this thread wasn't purely aimed at inexperienced PPL(H)s. Witness the accident report of the Liverpool - Thornaugh Twin Squirrel. I cannot believe that had the pilot been shuffling maps and flying stopwatch and compass to try and find his landing site would he ever have found himself in such a risk-ridden flight profile. The cockpit workload would have been so high simply trying to locate the LS that a no-go decision made before the flight profile became critical would probably/possibly have been made. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; I'm not criticising the pilot for his actions by the way, thats for people far more qualified than me - I'm just trying to learn from others' experiences.
JJ
I tend to agree with you about getting PPLs to fly in 'actual' conditions and whenever the opportunity presents itself for me to get someone less experienced into the spare seat of an A109, I take it. Turn off the SAS and let the fun begin! However,that is off topic so I'll stop there.
As regards your question "you are not advocating scrapping gps ....so what do YOU think ? . Good point. Not really sure. In order to prevent more burdensome legislation being forced in as a reaction to yet more 'accidents' happening is for the wider helicopter community to educate the less experienced.
Gary's Safety Evenings are a good starting point but on the whole I consider these to be probably 'preaching to the converted'.
Optional Post-PPL(H) training leading to an enhanced qualification that permits flight in lower weather limits might be worth considering. The regulators wouldn't let someone fly at night without proper training, yet they let people fly in crud without necessarily having had any specific training. Many PPLs conduct their training in 8/8 Blue sky without ever seeing cloud or flight without a defined horizon.
As a proposal for discussion - The VFR rules as they stand already have a structure which would be easy to implement. A 'basic' PPL(H) could be allowed to fly in 5km vis. After a 5 hour 'poor weather appreciation course' flown in real poor weather (shouldn't be too difficult to achieve in our wonderful climate) the vis restriction would be lifted to COCWSIS and 1500m.
Finally, the point of this thread wasn't purely aimed at inexperienced PPL(H)s. Witness the accident report of the Liverpool - Thornaugh Twin Squirrel. I cannot believe that had the pilot been shuffling maps and flying stopwatch and compass to try and find his landing site would he ever have found himself in such a risk-ridden flight profile. The cockpit workload would have been so high simply trying to locate the LS that a no-go decision made before the flight profile became critical would probably/possibly have been made. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; I'm not criticising the pilot for his actions by the way, thats for people far more qualified than me - I'm just trying to learn from others' experiences.
JJ
Helimut firstly you may or may not be a good pilot , but what you are NOT is
a) A good reader as i made it clear i was not bringing up the "actual" discussion re the other thread and
b) you are NOT in any position to tell people on this site what they can or cannot advocate
if you have anything positive to say then say it but banning people from airing their views is not in your remit . I seem to have some support in principle from Jelly ...so why not tell him to wind his neck in as well ???
Ignoring Helimut for now , i think JJ,s idea of a " next step " on your licence from pure vmc to say 1500 viz with training sounds like an excellent idea . There will be those here who will say that this encourages poor flying , insurance issues etc but i say if it is a step for safety the insurance companies will sanction certain instructors to carry this training out . I would book myself in for the first course with Jelly
a) A good reader as i made it clear i was not bringing up the "actual" discussion re the other thread and
b) you are NOT in any position to tell people on this site what they can or cannot advocate
if you have anything positive to say then say it but banning people from airing their views is not in your remit . I seem to have some support in principle from Jelly ...so why not tell him to wind his neck in as well ???Ignoring Helimut for now , i think JJ,s idea of a " next step " on your licence from pure vmc to say 1500 viz with training sounds like an excellent idea . There will be those here who will say that this encourages poor flying , insurance issues etc but i say if it is a step for safety the insurance companies will sanction certain instructors to carry this training out . I would book myself in for the first course with Jelly
Last edited by nigelh; 15th Nov 2008 at 23:31.
JJ
You are not the first to say it, I think we even discussed the thought when it was all still in its infancy, I'll leave it there for this thread and bring it up in the Heli Nights one in the next few days.
I genuinely don't know but perhaps the new 'Basic Licence' (I think thats what it will be called) when it comes in will have some increased weather minima associated with as it won't as far as I am aware have the 5hrs instrument as part of the course.
Post licence training is hugely necessary particularly as we now have 5th or 6th generation 300hr FIs (those who were generally taught by 300hr guys themselves) and the wisdom that sometimes comes with experience is
not being handed down like it used to be.
Nigel if we could implement something like Pure VMC down to ????m it would be great, but the 1500m change met with quite a bit of opposition when it was introduced, uping it further and then lowering it after a post ppl course is a good idea, but I'll wager it meets with a lot of opposition. Perhaps implementing it through an insurance company scheme might work, but they'd all need to buy into, it and who would have grandfather rights ? I wholeheartdly support an iniative like this, but without legislation it would be very hard to pull off I believe. Its one of the reasons that one of the final things I advocate at the safety evenings is 'Go and Ask for advanced training after you qualify' because "You don't know what you don't know".
Gary
PS not a dig at 300hr FIs I am a product of the system which is why I know how it works and what its pitfalls seem to be.
Gary's Safety Evenings are a good starting point but on the whole I consider these to be probably 'preaching to the converted'.
I genuinely don't know but perhaps the new 'Basic Licence' (I think thats what it will be called) when it comes in will have some increased weather minima associated with as it won't as far as I am aware have the 5hrs instrument as part of the course.
Post licence training is hugely necessary particularly as we now have 5th or 6th generation 300hr FIs (those who were generally taught by 300hr guys themselves) and the wisdom that sometimes comes with experience is
not being handed down like it used to be.
Nigel if we could implement something like Pure VMC down to ????m it would be great, but the 1500m change met with quite a bit of opposition when it was introduced, uping it further and then lowering it after a post ppl course is a good idea, but I'll wager it meets with a lot of opposition. Perhaps implementing it through an insurance company scheme might work, but they'd all need to buy into, it and who would have grandfather rights ? I wholeheartdly support an iniative like this, but without legislation it would be very hard to pull off I believe. Its one of the reasons that one of the final things I advocate at the safety evenings is 'Go and Ask for advanced training after you qualify' because "You don't know what you don't know".
Gary
PS not a dig at 300hr FIs I am a product of the system which is why I know how it works and what its pitfalls seem to be.
Last edited by VeeAny; 15th Nov 2008 at 21:01. Reason: Added bit for Nigel
VeeAny some very good points. I had not really thought about the FI part, i was lucky enough to have a chief pilot who took me through every possible trap i may come across before i did each job . ( including "actual".. oops there i go again 
) . In fact most cpl,s will have the benefit of a chief pilot to fly with for extra training something that the ppl doesnt have .
I cannot think the insurance co,s would have a problem with covering the training if it was done in a known area without pylons etc and proper minimums . I will ask them ... Maybe they might even encourage this training and apply a small discount if you "pass" this course ? They will be just as aware that cfit is costing them a fortune ( not to mention the human cost ). I can see no reason why you are NOT allowed to fly your robbo/ jetranger at night without special training but ARE allowed to fly in poor weather with NO training at all !!! You are right and it is illogical especially if you did your licence in the US , in which case you may never have flown near a cloud ( and dont need a night rating to fly at night ) then you come back home to yorkshire and fly in, shall we say, challenging weather more days than not .
) . In fact most cpl,s will have the benefit of a chief pilot to fly with for extra training something that the ppl doesnt have .I cannot think the insurance co,s would have a problem with covering the training if it was done in a known area without pylons etc and proper minimums . I will ask them ... Maybe they might even encourage this training and apply a small discount if you "pass" this course ? They will be just as aware that cfit is costing them a fortune ( not to mention the human cost ). I can see no reason why you are NOT allowed to fly your robbo/ jetranger at night without special training but ARE allowed to fly in poor weather with NO training at all !!! You are right and it is illogical especially if you did your licence in the US , in which case you may never have flown near a cloud ( and dont need a night rating to fly at night ) then you come back home to yorkshire and fly in, shall we say, challenging weather more days than not .
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know where the idea comes from that there are no clouds in the US, but I can assure you there are. Florida has extreme weather, in the Summer with Thunderstorms every day. In the Winter you have the coldfront coming through exactly like we have here. Night privileges are included in the PPL, but you need three hours of night training (including XC). In California the weather can change very quickly and New England got it's name not for the nice weather.
The idea of going into cloud with non-certified VFR aircraft is ridiculous and as said a few times before VFR means you have to stay clear of cloud at all times. There is no reason at all to end up in cloud. The advantage of a helicopter is you can land at any time and you just land when the weather deteriorates that much. The pilot in question made the wrong weather judgement by going in the first place. The motto is simple; know your meteorology and keep it up by studying it, even when you fly everyday.
Coming back to the original question; GPS might give a false sense of security, but shouldn't be a reason to ban GPS. It's up to the pilot if he wants to rely on it, and during training it's should be made clear the dangers involved. (What to my knowledge is common practice).
An interesting question however is how many PPL's end up in the statistics of CFIT and how many CPL's?
Interesting link : http://flash.aopa.org/asf/acs_vfrimc/
The idea of going into cloud with non-certified VFR aircraft is ridiculous and as said a few times before VFR means you have to stay clear of cloud at all times. There is no reason at all to end up in cloud. The advantage of a helicopter is you can land at any time and you just land when the weather deteriorates that much. The pilot in question made the wrong weather judgement by going in the first place. The motto is simple; know your meteorology and keep it up by studying it, even when you fly everyday.
Coming back to the original question; GPS might give a false sense of security, but shouldn't be a reason to ban GPS. It's up to the pilot if he wants to rely on it, and during training it's should be made clear the dangers involved. (What to my knowledge is common practice).
An interesting question however is how many PPL's end up in the statistics of CFIT and how many CPL's?
Interesting link : http://flash.aopa.org/asf/acs_vfrimc/