Crash near Bude, Cornwall: 24th July 2011
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnFi
Your continued rants, abuse, diversion of blame away from the obvious, and your belief that only you are right, will not get you anywhere.
Having read the report, it confirms what we all anticipated had happened and I see no need to look for further explanation. In fact we should be thankful that he crashed in a field and not into anything else. Very sad, but we have to use "big boys' rules" in the air.
We need to move away from feeding people with excuses for why things go wrong, and allow them to assume responsibility for their actions using the big boy rule #1 - Stay Clear of Cloud and In Sight of the Surface, Minimum Visibility 1,500m. Below that, you are no longer VMC, and therefore, no longer able to fly VFR.
If we keep things that simple, there is no need to try to force GA to understand your mumbo-jumbo. It really IS that simple.
TM
Having read the report, it confirms what we all anticipated had happened and I see no need to look for further explanation. In fact we should be thankful that he crashed in a field and not into anything else. Very sad, but we have to use "big boys' rules" in the air.
We need to move away from feeding people with excuses for why things go wrong, and allow them to assume responsibility for their actions using the big boy rule #1 - Stay Clear of Cloud and In Sight of the Surface, Minimum Visibility 1,500m. Below that, you are no longer VMC, and therefore, no longer able to fly VFR.
If we keep things that simple, there is no need to try to force GA to understand your mumbo-jumbo. It really IS that simple.
TM
Tam, on the money as ever 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why bother?
TM are you seriously trying to suggest that obeying that rule is enough to keep people safe?
The guy had 275hrs in blue sky, neither that rule nor the famous 180 degree mortal instrument test worked for this guy.
No! obeying that rule will not keep you safe children - you actually have to fly so that you keep sufficient references.
It's ok for you TM and Crab to flit in and out of cloud in your autopiloted stabilised machines ..... Even on an instrument rating in a helicopter pilots are not tested to fly on instruments unstabilised
YES they have to take responsibility for their actions - and believing you are doing it by obeying the big boy rule No.1 will get you killed.
The guy had 275hrs in blue sky, neither that rule nor the famous 180 degree mortal instrument test worked for this guy.
No! obeying that rule will not keep you safe children - you actually have to fly so that you keep sufficient references.
It's ok for you TM and Crab to flit in and out of cloud in your autopiloted stabilised machines ..... Even on an instrument rating in a helicopter pilots are not tested to fly on instruments unstabilised
allow them to assume responsibility for their actions using the big boy rule #1
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The competency management process...... broken???
A week or so ago I was chatting with a JAA licensed ATPL (issued in UK) who had managed to get an FI(H) rating with 2 weeks study and 20 hours flying. Needless to say that even though he had the rating in his hand he said he did not feel competent to teach anyone.
I venture to suggest that we should now turn round to tomorrow's helicopter pilots and say........
"We have tried it your way, the minimalist, affordable way, for all our helicopter licenses and ratings and now we will do it differently because it has not worked. We need PPLs that properly understand their limitations and have a breadth of training worthy of the licence. Instructors will never deliver the transmission of the qualities required for good risk assessment and decision making unless they have them to begin with. They must therefore have demonstrable and meaningful work experience prior to attending the FI(H) course and that course will be at least 6 week and involve 40 hours of flying training with a breakdown that will include mutual training, night flying, instrument training and LOFT training in a suitable FTD."
If the regulators don't respond to the need for change then the industry needs to set up a scheme that provides for all courses to be independently audited by an IOSA-like body set up by the International Helicopter Safety Team that will award Colour coded approval levels, RED - compliant but minimal, GREEN - meets a set of minimal standards or best practices as agreed by IHST sub committee in line with the principles embraced by IOSA.
The horrendous accident rates in GA will only be addressed properly if we seek and maintain higher teaching and proficiency standards that are rewarded by lower insurance rates and the award of Michelin-type stars to schools whose students remain accident free. Yes! they need to take responsibility for the people they sign off.
G.
I venture to suggest that we should now turn round to tomorrow's helicopter pilots and say........
"We have tried it your way, the minimalist, affordable way, for all our helicopter licenses and ratings and now we will do it differently because it has not worked. We need PPLs that properly understand their limitations and have a breadth of training worthy of the licence. Instructors will never deliver the transmission of the qualities required for good risk assessment and decision making unless they have them to begin with. They must therefore have demonstrable and meaningful work experience prior to attending the FI(H) course and that course will be at least 6 week and involve 40 hours of flying training with a breakdown that will include mutual training, night flying, instrument training and LOFT training in a suitable FTD."
If the regulators don't respond to the need for change then the industry needs to set up a scheme that provides for all courses to be independently audited by an IOSA-like body set up by the International Helicopter Safety Team that will award Colour coded approval levels, RED - compliant but minimal, GREEN - meets a set of minimal standards or best practices as agreed by IHST sub committee in line with the principles embraced by IOSA.
The horrendous accident rates in GA will only be addressed properly if we seek and maintain higher teaching and proficiency standards that are rewarded by lower insurance rates and the award of Michelin-type stars to schools whose students remain accident free. Yes! they need to take responsibility for the people they sign off.
G.
AnFI - following big boy rule #1 will keep them safe, it is when they don't follow said rule that they get into trouble. The 180 option is no substitute for avoiding cloud in the first place but, if sh*t happens it is their only hope of regaining VMC.
It is not, as we have stated before, rocket science to get pilots to estimate their in-flight visibility and proximity to the cloud base - so once they cannot see more than 1500m they should land or turn round.
A lowering cloudbase doesn't just appear from nowhere - the only excuse for not recognising it happening is if it is dark or you are over the sea where it is easier to get caught out.
If a pilot with a PPLH can't assess the vis or cloudbase he/she should simply not be allowed to fly at all.
It is not, as we have stated before, rocket science to get pilots to estimate their in-flight visibility and proximity to the cloud base - so once they cannot see more than 1500m they should land or turn round.
A lowering cloudbase doesn't just appear from nowhere - the only excuse for not recognising it happening is if it is dark or you are over the sea where it is easier to get caught out.
If a pilot with a PPLH can't assess the vis or cloudbase he/she should simply not be allowed to fly at all.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help but wonder if there should not be a stricter selection of PPL students or a stricter exam.
If so many end up dead due to poor decision making, then perhaps they should be protected from their own stupidity by not giving them the privilege that allows them to kill themselves in a spectacular manner.
Decision making requires maturity and knowledge; apparently something that is missing in a lot of these accidents.
@AnFI: I've had the "pleasure" of poling a medium twin IMC without stabilisation after my AFCS failed. We not only survived but were even quite accurate on track and altitude. It is not rocket science, it does take practice.
If one lacks the practice, don't get yourself in a position where it bites you.
Big boys rules, indeed: if you can afford the PPL and play in the real world where a wrong decision can kill you, you'd better play by the rules or experience the Darwinian process.
If so many end up dead due to poor decision making, then perhaps they should be protected from their own stupidity by not giving them the privilege that allows them to kill themselves in a spectacular manner.
Decision making requires maturity and knowledge; apparently something that is missing in a lot of these accidents.
@AnFI: I've had the "pleasure" of poling a medium twin IMC without stabilisation after my AFCS failed. We not only survived but were even quite accurate on track and altitude. It is not rocket science, it does take practice.
If one lacks the practice, don't get yourself in a position where it bites you.
Big boys rules, indeed: if you can afford the PPL and play in the real world where a wrong decision can kill you, you'd better play by the rules or experience the Darwinian process.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I frequently fly in poor wx conditions. When it happens it is usually a calculated risk.
Occasionally it can turn out to be worse than expected and I then have to adapt my risk assessment and decide to continue or not.
"Get there itus" does not have to be a fatal desease if you make the right decisions and know what to do.
This comes from experience. I was never taught how to proceed in these poor conditions, but just told not to do it.
Being told "not to do it" with rules does not help the situation there in the cockpit.
In my opinion you should be shown how to "not do it" by an experienced instructor first.
ie. get out there on a bad day with an instructor, in below vis minima and get scared enough to learn not to loose sight of your visual references.
You can't do that legally so training on how to avoid this situation will never happen.
.
Occasionally it can turn out to be worse than expected and I then have to adapt my risk assessment and decide to continue or not.
"Get there itus" does not have to be a fatal desease if you make the right decisions and know what to do.
This comes from experience. I was never taught how to proceed in these poor conditions, but just told not to do it.
Being told "not to do it" with rules does not help the situation there in the cockpit.
In my opinion you should be shown how to "not do it" by an experienced instructor first.
ie. get out there on a bad day with an instructor, in below vis minima and get scared enough to learn not to loose sight of your visual references.
You can't do that legally so training on how to avoid this situation will never happen.
.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopjock/AnFi
You two are wearing red noses right? It has to be red nose day in the motherland.
Tam Macklin out this time....really.
Tam Macklin out this time....really.
Last edited by hihover; 13th May 2012 at 18:00.
Overthawk
I think what chop is saying is the pplh course should have an element of flying in poor weather and what to do or not as the case may be. Lets be honest too many people bang on about not flying if the wx is bad or at such and such a viz etc etc.Where do you get the info from to make the decision ? The met office is ****e ever since it moved to Exeter, it seems more often the forecast is nothing like reality so the poor ppl goes off and more often than not the wx is better than forecast so he is fine and thinks well it was alright last time ! Then again it can be way worse than forecast and people get caught out
Personally the caa's 5 hours of instrument appreciation should be changed to 5 hours of bad weather flying. But to be fair how to you define this ? EASA are now changing the 5 hours to enough hours to excute a 180 degree turn +/- 150 ft.
It boils down to captaincy ( better called common sense !!), probably the most difficult " thing " to teach, if sense was common everyone would have it !
I think what chop is saying is the pplh course should have an element of flying in poor weather and what to do or not as the case may be. Lets be honest too many people bang on about not flying if the wx is bad or at such and such a viz etc etc.Where do you get the info from to make the decision ? The met office is ****e ever since it moved to Exeter, it seems more often the forecast is nothing like reality so the poor ppl goes off and more often than not the wx is better than forecast so he is fine and thinks well it was alright last time ! Then again it can be way worse than forecast and people get caught out
Personally the caa's 5 hours of instrument appreciation should be changed to 5 hours of bad weather flying. But to be fair how to you define this ? EASA are now changing the 5 hours to enough hours to excute a 180 degree turn +/- 150 ft.
It boils down to captaincy ( better called common sense !!), probably the most difficult " thing " to teach, if sense was common everyone would have it !
Hughes - the weather forecast is (obviously) just a guide and not something that determines whether a VFR flight can be safely completed or not. The issue (that everyone seems to be in violent agreement about) is that this is about decision making. Changing the attitude of an over-confident and probably under-experienced/ill-equipped pilot is what will save lives. If the Wx gets too ****ty, stop. That's it. Don't press on thinking 'I'll get through somehow', or 'I can always do a 180..'.
Bored now...
Bored now...
Top2
I agree with you entirely, the wx as a guide is true but when it is so badly wrong it lulls ppl's into a false sense of security. Take this morning for instance, according to Carol Kirkwood on the BBC ( I know its not aviation but info comes from met office)it is supposed to be raining in the SW, well I live 12 miles from Exeter and guess what it isnt and hasnt last night as forecast. When you have this constantly happening your average ppl takes little notice of the weather until one day he gets caught out badly
I agree with you entirely, the wx as a guide is true but when it is so badly wrong it lulls ppl's into a false sense of security. Take this morning for instance, according to Carol Kirkwood on the BBC ( I know its not aviation but info comes from met office)it is supposed to be raining in the SW, well I live 12 miles from Exeter and guess what it isnt and hasnt last night as forecast. When you have this constantly happening your average ppl takes little notice of the weather until one day he gets caught out badly
...but when it is so badly wrong it lulls ppl's into a false sense of security
Dealing with what's actually happening in front of you when you're flying is all that counts.
"It's not my fault Mr AAIB investigator, Doris on the TV said it would be sunny and it's actually cloudy, so I was lulled into a false sense of security and went IMC. What else could I have done?"
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ttb - they are not all overconfident types - some are conscientious types who believe that if they obey 'BBR No'1 they will be safe - whereas infact they will be killed by relying on that and then the 180.
Yes they are ill-equipped...
In many cases the visibility was not all that bad just prior to cloud entry when the viz then dropped rapidly to nil...
In some of the accident reports the vis was better than 10k prior to cloud entry...
These guys just could not recognise they were about to fly into cloud...
If they did recognise it then they would not have flown into the cloud...
How is that logic missing you guys?
(flying is riddled with illusions and misunderstandings which even experienced pilots are subject to. Common examples are; that from 2300ft an aircraft passing 400ft underneath will appear to be very low. An aircraft viewed with only horizontal separation will appear to be vertically above a point much further away than the reality. Closing speeds (eg in formation) appear to be small but become surprisingly large with proximity etc)
Yes they are ill-equipped...
In many cases the visibility was not all that bad just prior to cloud entry when the viz then dropped rapidly to nil...
In some of the accident reports the vis was better than 10k prior to cloud entry...
These guys just could not recognise they were about to fly into cloud...
If they did recognise it then they would not have flown into the cloud...
How is that logic missing you guys?
(flying is riddled with illusions and misunderstandings which even experienced pilots are subject to. Common examples are; that from 2300ft an aircraft passing 400ft underneath will appear to be very low. An aircraft viewed with only horizontal separation will appear to be vertically above a point much further away than the reality. Closing speeds (eg in formation) appear to be small but become surprisingly large with proximity etc)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports can be fiction ....
Yes H369 ... wx reports are totally unreliable as a method of avoiding IMC.
A good forecast is often followed by potentially fatal actuals... this happens frequently.
A good forecast is often followed by potentially fatal actuals... this happens frequently.
The cloudbase isn't a hard fixture and the transition from VMC to IMC is usually a gradual one. It is quite normal to be able to see the ground when 100' to 200' above the cloudbase - all that is required is to lower the lever to recover to VMC.
The problem comes when a pilot goes lower, ignoring his 500' rule (sometimes legally but not very sensibly) and ends up in the same situation (ie in the cloud) but without the option to just lower the lever because he has little clear air below him.
The answer for a PPL is that as soon as you have to descend below 500' to keep away from the cloud, you should turn round and head back to better weather or land. If they all followed this advice then the number of IIMC events would be greatly reduced.
The problem comes when a pilot goes lower, ignoring his 500' rule (sometimes legally but not very sensibly) and ends up in the same situation (ie in the cloud) but without the option to just lower the lever because he has little clear air below him.
The answer for a PPL is that as soon as you have to descend below 500' to keep away from the cloud, you should turn round and head back to better weather or land. If they all followed this advice then the number of IIMC events would be greatly reduced.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer for a PPL is that as soon as you have to descend below 500' to keep away from the cloud, you should turn round and head back to better weather or land.
Chopjock - I've missed you. I forgot how irresistably baity you were
Think carefully before responding to that sort of advice. It comes from experience
you dream of having.
Anfi: I recall many moons ago asking about your experience. I never received an answer. Correct me if I am wrong (again!) but you are not a pilot are you?
My guess is you are an aviation journalist and/or a lecturer in aviation associated subjects perhaps?
Nothing wrong in that, I hasten to add but the proof of the pudding etc etc....
No end of courses / qualifications, can beat experience and the price for experience is time. Unfortunately for some, time is in short supply as they throw valuable caution/advice/instruction/rules to the wind.
All novices have to go through the mill. Those that come out the other end, generally display common sense qualities.
Those that don't can't
No-one is with you at moments like those that the poor guy experienced in Bude, Cornwall that fateful day. You simply rely on your own logic and common sense, believe me Anfi - many of us here as SME's know this for a fact.
Your driven, constant pounding of the obvious falls on deaf ears. Human frailty wins everytime - accept it and let's move on now, eh?
Think carefully before responding to that sort of advice. It comes from experience
you dream of having.Anfi: I recall many moons ago asking about your experience. I never received an answer. Correct me if I am wrong (again!) but you are not a pilot are you?
My guess is you are an aviation journalist and/or a lecturer in aviation associated subjects perhaps?
Nothing wrong in that, I hasten to add but the proof of the pudding etc etc....
No end of courses / qualifications, can beat experience and the price for experience is time. Unfortunately for some, time is in short supply as they throw valuable caution/advice/instruction/rules to the wind.
All novices have to go through the mill. Those that come out the other end, generally display common sense qualities.
Those that don't can't
No-one is with you at moments like those that the poor guy experienced in Bude, Cornwall that fateful day. You simply rely on your own logic and common sense, believe me Anfi - many of us here as SME's know this for a fact.
Your driven, constant pounding of the obvious falls on deaf ears. Human frailty wins everytime - accept it and let's move on now, eh?
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 16th May 2012 at 18:05.
I don't know where this thread is trying to go, or what the right answers are to this problem... But as someone who used to regularly have to pump up into IMC in an un-stabilised Bolkow on lighthouse ops, I can only imagine the shear terror that poor bastard felt as it all started to fall apart...