Crash near Bude, Cornwall: 24th July 2011
Does the first "I" in IIMC mean idiot?
Correct.
ROT - fly halfway between the cloudbase and the ground. Simple. Think about it.
5 hours of IMC training is a waste of time.
ROT - fly halfway between the cloudbase and the ground. Simple. Think about it.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simples
Rot : yup ... half way between the cloud and the ground at a speed that lets you stop before the cloud meets the ground
Some people cant see that.
You say they shouldn't be flying... well some of them are not because they've already killed themselves so that's ok with everyone is it?
Some people cant see that.
You say they shouldn't be flying... well some of them are not because they've already killed themselves so that's ok with everyone is it?
At risk of igniting a mil v civ flaming, I will suggest that some of those who fly PPL are not in fact God's gift to aviation and there is an element of Darwinism about the results.
In order to get a PPLH you have to get a medical, do some studying and achieve a relatively low standard of aircraft handling and captaincy - this can take you as many hours as you can afford but the licence at the end of it is no guarantee that you are competent to deal with every weather situation you might encounter when flying out in the real world by yourself.
In most cases experience is gained without another pilot next to you and so the quality of that experience is a very variable feast - are you the type of person to recognise that you have made a mistake in the first place and then learn from those mistakes?
Just as teenage boys are most likely to crash cars after passing their driving test because they want to prove themselves capable and tend to push the envelope, so some PPLs will bite off more than they can chew when making decisions about weather and whether or not they should fly in it.
Probably the worst PPLs are likely to be those with a few hundred hours - enough to convince themselves they are competent and capable but not enough to actually be so - this used to be identified in the military as the 1000 hour pilot, statistically the most likely ones to have an accident/incident.
Whilst IIMC can catch anyone out, it is far more likely to be fatal when that person is relatively inexperienced, has not undergone recent training, has a slightly inflated opinion of their own ability and is under perceived pressure (whether self-induced or otherwise) to go flying in less than ideal conditions.
With a modest amount of ability and a big wallet you can transport yourself into the magical world of aviation but if you don't treat it with the respect it deserves, you can't complain when it comes back and bites you hard.
In order to get a PPLH you have to get a medical, do some studying and achieve a relatively low standard of aircraft handling and captaincy - this can take you as many hours as you can afford but the licence at the end of it is no guarantee that you are competent to deal with every weather situation you might encounter when flying out in the real world by yourself.
In most cases experience is gained without another pilot next to you and so the quality of that experience is a very variable feast - are you the type of person to recognise that you have made a mistake in the first place and then learn from those mistakes?
Just as teenage boys are most likely to crash cars after passing their driving test because they want to prove themselves capable and tend to push the envelope, so some PPLs will bite off more than they can chew when making decisions about weather and whether or not they should fly in it.
Probably the worst PPLs are likely to be those with a few hundred hours - enough to convince themselves they are competent and capable but not enough to actually be so - this used to be identified in the military as the 1000 hour pilot, statistically the most likely ones to have an accident/incident.
Whilst IIMC can catch anyone out, it is far more likely to be fatal when that person is relatively inexperienced, has not undergone recent training, has a slightly inflated opinion of their own ability and is under perceived pressure (whether self-induced or otherwise) to go flying in less than ideal conditions.
With a modest amount of ability and a big wallet you can transport yourself into the magical world of aviation but if you don't treat it with the respect it deserves, you can't complain when it comes back and bites you hard.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab, hello matey.
Whilst I don't disagree with any of your comments, we need to stop pointing the problem at PPLs. Sure, they are at significant risk due to their inexperience and general lack of any supervisor, but I can't emphasise enough that this is not a PPL issue.
I am not trying to protect PPLs, I am trying stop us all looking in the wrong direction because this is industry wide and military wide, and it is a worldwide issue as well.
VFR is VFR.
Tam
Whilst I don't disagree with any of your comments, we need to stop pointing the problem at PPLs. Sure, they are at significant risk due to their inexperience and general lack of any supervisor, but I can't emphasise enough that this is not a PPL issue.
I am not trying to protect PPLs, I am trying stop us all looking in the wrong direction because this is industry wide and military wide, and it is a worldwide issue as well.
VFR is VFR.
Tam
Crab - that's a bit unfair, but I agree with the rest of what you say. The mil vs. civvy argument is old and a bit off-piste, so I don't want to resurrect it again here. There are lots of PPLHs with 000's of hours, the vast majority of whom are perfectly safe, conscientious and competent pilots (there also a lot of morons that should be grounded, but I digress). This thread is about VFR pilots getting into IMC.
Your "slightly inflated opinion of their own ability" comment is absolutely key. I'm sure that this has far more to do with why the main factor in 39% of fatal helicopter accidents is 'continued adverse weather' and in 34%, 'dis-orientation' (stats from 1980 - 2009), than any other.
At the risk of repeating myself, most PPLH's I know are type A entrepreneurs and successful in their own business. Chris Watts was one. Steve Hislop was another. Mark Weir was another (although we're still waiting for the AAIB verdict on that one). Typically, these individuals are used to being in control, not being accountable to anyone but themselves (unlike mil drivers), resent authority and see all obstacles as just another challenge to be overcome. Turning back (in business as well as flight) isn't high on their list of options. I believe this 'It'll be fine' attitude is the major issue. Top that up with a big dollup of inexperience and some very basic instrument training and the results are all too familiar.
Not getting into IMC in the first instance is the only solution. If all VFR pilots could recognise and accept when it was time to admit defeat - and then do something about it before it is too late - instead of pressing on and getting into the 'white canopy' situation, we wouldn't be reading about these accidents every other month (AnFI - this was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post).
TTB
Your "slightly inflated opinion of their own ability" comment is absolutely key. I'm sure that this has far more to do with why the main factor in 39% of fatal helicopter accidents is 'continued adverse weather' and in 34%, 'dis-orientation' (stats from 1980 - 2009), than any other.
At the risk of repeating myself, most PPLH's I know are type A entrepreneurs and successful in their own business. Chris Watts was one. Steve Hislop was another. Mark Weir was another (although we're still waiting for the AAIB verdict on that one). Typically, these individuals are used to being in control, not being accountable to anyone but themselves (unlike mil drivers), resent authority and see all obstacles as just another challenge to be overcome. Turning back (in business as well as flight) isn't high on their list of options. I believe this 'It'll be fine' attitude is the major issue. Top that up with a big dollup of inexperience and some very basic instrument training and the results are all too familiar.
Not getting into IMC in the first instance is the only solution. If all VFR pilots could recognise and accept when it was time to admit defeat - and then do something about it before it is too late - instead of pressing on and getting into the 'white canopy' situation, we wouldn't be reading about these accidents every other month (AnFI - this was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post).
TTB
Tam, you are right that it is a more widespread problem than just PPLs but those are the ones we keep reading about on this forum.
An excess of ambition and aspiration over ability can get to any of us but there is more control (I believe) over CPLs, ATPLs and the mil which seems to stop it happening as often - each step up the ladder requires more ability and the demonstration of better decision-making and captaincy.
The PPLs are by far the most vulnerable and, as toptobottom says, more likely to be successful in another field which can add to their tendency to overconfidence and a reluctance to accept failure as an option.
There are industry-wide pressures to get the job done because helicopters are expensive and those who pay for them expect to get value for money but the PPL pressures are more likely to be self-induced.
Sadly, I don't have an answer to the problem so regarding it as a Darwinian selection process seems fair.
An excess of ambition and aspiration over ability can get to any of us but there is more control (I believe) over CPLs, ATPLs and the mil which seems to stop it happening as often - each step up the ladder requires more ability and the demonstration of better decision-making and captaincy.
The PPLs are by far the most vulnerable and, as toptobottom says, more likely to be successful in another field which can add to their tendency to overconfidence and a reluctance to accept failure as an option.
There are industry-wide pressures to get the job done because helicopters are expensive and those who pay for them expect to get value for money but the PPL pressures are more likely to be self-induced.
Sadly, I don't have an answer to the problem so regarding it as a Darwinian selection process seems fair.
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anfi:
"yup ... half way between the cloud and the ground at a speed that lets you stop before the cloud meets the ground
Some people cant see that."
I fully agreed with this seemingly "simples" statement, especially about the speed part.
I do not agree that it is "easy to see it", certainly if some form of terrain is involved.
And I think it involves 109E (for example) as well as R44's
m2c
d3
"yup ... half way between the cloud and the ground at a speed that lets you stop before the cloud meets the ground
Some people cant see that."
I fully agreed with this seemingly "simples" statement, especially about the speed part.
I do not agree that it is "easy to see it", certainly if some form of terrain is involved.
And I think it involves 109E (for example) as well as R44's
m2c
d3
If you want to prevent IIMC in PPLs (and I am not sure they are the only ones at risk - Matthew Harding) then the best thing the pilot fraternity can do (ie those of us not in charge of the regulations) is to engage them.
The risk with the last few postings, whatever their validity, is that it will get the backs up the very people deemed to be vulnerable. Time and again I meet low hour PPLs who would love advice and wisdom but are terrified of being ridiculed by their seniors.
As a pretty poor amateur CPL I have modified my flying and recognised my limitations far more from a word of encouragement and support from my seniors than from people shouting how dangerous /studid / ideotic I am. The latter may have been right, but my natural instinct was always to go on the offensive and deny.
The risk with the last few postings, whatever their validity, is that it will get the backs up the very people deemed to be vulnerable. Time and again I meet low hour PPLs who would love advice and wisdom but are terrified of being ridiculed by their seniors.
As a pretty poor amateur CPL I have modified my flying and recognised my limitations far more from a word of encouragement and support from my seniors than from people shouting how dangerous /studid / ideotic I am. The latter may have been right, but my natural instinct was always to go on the offensive and deny.
homonculus
If good advice on how to prevent your own death gets your back up, then you should be in neither a helicopter nor indeed any vehicle. This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about; individuals who truly believe they know better, despite knowing they have received only basic training and have no/little experience of IMC situations. Almost all 'seniors' in the industry are prepared to give advice slowly and calmly, without being intimidating or demeaning and almost all low time PPLs will be genuinely receptive - on the ground. It's getting them to lose that arrogance and realise they're only moments from death when they're alone in the air
If good advice on how to prevent your own death gets your back up, then you should be in neither a helicopter nor indeed any vehicle. This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about; individuals who truly believe they know better, despite knowing they have received only basic training and have no/little experience of IMC situations. Almost all 'seniors' in the industry are prepared to give advice slowly and calmly, without being intimidating or demeaning and almost all low time PPLs will be genuinely receptive - on the ground. It's getting them to lose that arrogance and realise they're only moments from death when they're alone in the air
Turning back (in business as well as flight) isn't high on their list of options. I believe this 'It'll be fine' attitude is the major issue. Top that up with a big dollup of inexperience and some very basic instrument training
As far as our industry goes I think it is one where experienced people are almost always very happy to offer help and advice . I have had a few over the years take me under their wing ( for all the good it did !!) . Most of the best and most experienced pilots I know will talk the hind leg off a donkey imparting their wisdom IF they think you are taking it in , the problem is that most of the great guidance I have had has been when I have been in a professional environment . A lot of ppl,s I think just get cut loose with nobody ( like a chief pilot ) to have to hand for advice .
I do have some sympathy for some peoples views that when you have an aircraft that can hovver that means there is no need to fly into a cloud .. You can go right up to it , touch it , and land or turn back . Personally I think trying to keep 500ft causes problems ... I would rather be 300 ft with good viz , going slow , rather than 500ft half in it ... Regardless of what the book says !!
I do have some sympathy for some peoples views that when you have an aircraft that can hovver that means there is no need to fly into a cloud .. You can go right up to it , touch it , and land or turn back . Personally I think trying to keep 500ft causes problems ... I would rather be 300 ft with good viz , going slow , rather than 500ft half in it ... Regardless of what the book says !!
And I think it involves 109E (for example)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of ppl,s I think just get cut loose with nobody ( like a chief pilot ) to have to hand for advice .
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think trying to keep 500ft causes problems ... I would rather be 300 ft with good viz , going slow , rather than 500ft half in it ... Regardless of what the book says !!
Going close enough to touch the clouds is what's killing people
(be they ppl,cpl,atpl, civvy or mil - you get all sorts (good, bad, indifferent, reckless etc etc in all 'camps')
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - partly correct !
Crab:
Yes - you do not have the answer - so; sorry no it's not really a Darwin thing.
No more than if someone had never been shown instictive RRPM preservation when the engine fails to deliver full power. Or not shown full throttle operation say at altitude...
... skill set required for maintaining Visual References is the same (just because 80% of people don't even realise they are using a 'skill set' does not make it 'ok' for people to die ... they have families/lovers etc...
TTB:
YES!
Not really right... They must be able to Maintain Visual References - regardless of the weather ... there must not be a set of conditions where there is any elevated risk - risk translates to a proportion of accidents (unacceptable) I haven't really explained that very well but please excuse me I don't have the time just now... gotta go
Sadly, I don't have an answer to the problem so regarding it as a Darwinian selection process seems fair.
No more than if someone had never been shown instictive RRPM preservation when the engine fails to deliver full power. Or not shown full throttle operation say at altitude...
... skill set required for maintaining Visual References is the same (just because 80% of people don't even realise they are using a 'skill set' does not make it 'ok' for people to die ... they have families/lovers etc...
TTB:
Not getting into IMC in the first instance is the only solution.
If all VFR pilots could recognise and accept when it was time to admit defeat - and then do something about it before it is too late - instead of pressing on and getting into the 'white canopy' situation, we wouldn't be reading about these accidents every other month (AnFI - this was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post).
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnFI
And just to help those vulnerable pilots, could you just set out exactly what the "skill set" is in your mind to maintain Visual References?
Sliding Doors
What sort of cloud base do you think is involved in most of these fatal IIMC accidents at the point of LOC? 400ft? 300ft? Lower, I suspect. Have you ever experienced circumstances when a flight can be completed by flying lower and slower, legally and perfectly safely, when the cloud base is less than 500ft?
And just to help those vulnerable pilots, could you just set out exactly what the "skill set" is in your mind to maintain Visual References?
Sliding Doors
What sort of cloud base do you think is involved in most of these fatal IIMC accidents at the point of LOC? 400ft? 300ft? Lower, I suspect. Have you ever experienced circumstances when a flight can be completed by flying lower and slower, legally and perfectly safely, when the cloud base is less than 500ft?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I wonder if the taught mindset of the 180 degree turn, as taught under the hood, is the actual danger. I'm thinking of the disorientation / loss of spatial awareness factors here.
A few folk will recall an accident to a police aircraft in UK, at night, about eleven years ago. The pilot got caught out by very low (unforecast) cloud at night during departure from base. In an attempt to turn back to the helipad the aircraft hit nearby trees. The pilot was seriously injured and an observer lost his life.
I took off about an hour before, in the dark, from an unlit helipad in similar circumstances and hit the same unforecast low cloud at about two hundred feet agl. Never having been through the PPL course, my own escape plan was to descend only in a straight line to regain visual contact before carrying out a very low level but gentle circuit back to the helipad. We learned of the accident to the other police helicopter in the neighbouring force a few hours later.
A few folk will recall an accident to a police aircraft in UK, at night, about eleven years ago. The pilot got caught out by very low (unforecast) cloud at night during departure from base. In an attempt to turn back to the helipad the aircraft hit nearby trees. The pilot was seriously injured and an observer lost his life.
I took off about an hour before, in the dark, from an unlit helipad in similar circumstances and hit the same unforecast low cloud at about two hundred feet agl. Never having been through the PPL course, my own escape plan was to descend only in a straight line to regain visual contact before carrying out a very low level but gentle circuit back to the helipad. We learned of the accident to the other police helicopter in the neighbouring force a few hours later.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever experienced circumstances when a flight can be completed by flying lower and slower, legally and perfectly safely, when the cloud base is less than 500ft?