VOR & PPL Training
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simple FP
something like recovering from unusual attitudes and steep turns deserves more time as they are so easy to encounter if panic sets in and you are lost in a big F...ing cloud. and I find it a bit strange there is no IMC rating for rotary ??
something like recovering from unusual attitudes and steep turns deserves more time as they are so easy to encounter if panic sets in and you are lost in a big F...ing cloud. and I find it a bit strange there is no IMC rating for rotary ??
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dennis,
Responding specifically to your question about simulated IMC, I have ranted on previously about this. I believe that the inclusion of this in the basic PPL(H) syllabus is counterproductive. I believe that it encourages inexperienced pilots to continue flying in marginal conditions for too long, instead of aborting the flight earlier. My view is that it does this because they are able to fly under the hood and maintain control during the training. They think this is the same as entering inadvertent IMC, so they are much less wary of getting into that situation in the future.[Someone could argue that the instructor should warn them about this, but we all know that some people are more affected by direct experience (misinterpreted) than by what they are told by an authority figure].
I understand what the authorities are trying to do with the 5 hours: give the student/future pilot enough IMC skills to maintain attitude in the event of inadvertent IMC, sufficient to do "something simple" like a 180 degree turn to clear the cloud. I am trying to remember when this was introduced into the PPL(H) syllabus. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it came into the helicopter PPL in the UK, when JAR took over from the UK CAA requirements. When JAR FCL was created a lot of stuff was just carried across from the fixed wing requirements into those for helicopters, without taking proper account of the differences. Basic IMC flying in a FW seems to me to be entirely different to helicopters.
However, assuming they fly an unstabilised small helicopter, I believe that the 5 hrs simulated IMC in a helicopter does not give the student that capability. It falsely gives a student confidence that they could manage in IIMC; this changes their perception of the risk of IIMC so they do not spend enough effort avoiding it. This is particularly true when you consider how perishable the skill of instrument flying is. Those of us who have IRs know that we have to develop our own personal currency rules to avoid going IFR in an IR equipped helicopter, unless our skills our really current. Unless you do something like offshore/North Sea, it is easy to get out of practice. This is even more important for the 5hr IMC PPL, who did his very limited IMC training several years ago.
I am sure that those of us who go on to acquire commercial licences, even IRs, find the simulated IMC flying a useful basis upon which to start the serious business of learning IMC proper. However, given the limited time available on the PPL course, I don't think it is a reason to keep it on the PPL course. Remember, it is not a requirement to have an AH or DG fitted to a helicopter for private flying VFR. [The same applies to VOR tracking, in my view. Nice to do, but of little or no relevance for the average PPL, and very few helicopters have them fitted].
There is one weakness (at least) for the argument of getting rid of simulated IMC in the PPL(H). When a pilot comes to do the night rating, simulated IMC becomes important. This is because it is possible to go properly inadvertent IMC at night. During the day IMC cannot sneak up on you unawares - if you go inadvertent IMC during the day it is because you have pushed too hard. During the day you cannot fly into a cloud without realising it was there. The same is not true at night. So, it makes sense to retain simulated IMC as part of the night rating: I guess the answer is to transfer the 5 hours into the night rating.
Commenting on a couple of things raised by others:
I love the practical approach of the FAA: be competent to use what is on the aircraft you fly - brilliant!
I would be absolutely opposed to the idea of an IMC rating for PPLs: it would be dangerous. The basic helicopter is not fit for the purpose of going IMC. Non-IR commercial pilots doing CAT at night do something similar to an IMC rating every 6 months to remain "current" for CAT night flying. However, that is in a stabilised twin fitted with an autopilot, AH/DG and radionav equipment and they are commercial pilots with significant experience.[Unless I misread the views of the regulators completely, it would not stand a chance of being permitted. Just look at how EASA are kicking about the current FW IMC rating in the UK].
[Incidentally, I think that the views expressed by a recent PPL(H) ECmech155 above that he would like to do an IMC rating on helicopters shows how our current training leaves a recent PPL(H) with the wrong view of the risks involved in going IMC. I normally avoid making critical references to the posts of others that might be taken personally, but that comment struck me as so eloquent of his misguided views.]
Responding specifically to your question about simulated IMC, I have ranted on previously about this. I believe that the inclusion of this in the basic PPL(H) syllabus is counterproductive. I believe that it encourages inexperienced pilots to continue flying in marginal conditions for too long, instead of aborting the flight earlier. My view is that it does this because they are able to fly under the hood and maintain control during the training. They think this is the same as entering inadvertent IMC, so they are much less wary of getting into that situation in the future.[Someone could argue that the instructor should warn them about this, but we all know that some people are more affected by direct experience (misinterpreted) than by what they are told by an authority figure].
I understand what the authorities are trying to do with the 5 hours: give the student/future pilot enough IMC skills to maintain attitude in the event of inadvertent IMC, sufficient to do "something simple" like a 180 degree turn to clear the cloud. I am trying to remember when this was introduced into the PPL(H) syllabus. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it came into the helicopter PPL in the UK, when JAR took over from the UK CAA requirements. When JAR FCL was created a lot of stuff was just carried across from the fixed wing requirements into those for helicopters, without taking proper account of the differences. Basic IMC flying in a FW seems to me to be entirely different to helicopters.
However, assuming they fly an unstabilised small helicopter, I believe that the 5 hrs simulated IMC in a helicopter does not give the student that capability. It falsely gives a student confidence that they could manage in IIMC; this changes their perception of the risk of IIMC so they do not spend enough effort avoiding it. This is particularly true when you consider how perishable the skill of instrument flying is. Those of us who have IRs know that we have to develop our own personal currency rules to avoid going IFR in an IR equipped helicopter, unless our skills our really current. Unless you do something like offshore/North Sea, it is easy to get out of practice. This is even more important for the 5hr IMC PPL, who did his very limited IMC training several years ago.
I am sure that those of us who go on to acquire commercial licences, even IRs, find the simulated IMC flying a useful basis upon which to start the serious business of learning IMC proper. However, given the limited time available on the PPL course, I don't think it is a reason to keep it on the PPL course. Remember, it is not a requirement to have an AH or DG fitted to a helicopter for private flying VFR. [The same applies to VOR tracking, in my view. Nice to do, but of little or no relevance for the average PPL, and very few helicopters have them fitted].
There is one weakness (at least) for the argument of getting rid of simulated IMC in the PPL(H). When a pilot comes to do the night rating, simulated IMC becomes important. This is because it is possible to go properly inadvertent IMC at night. During the day IMC cannot sneak up on you unawares - if you go inadvertent IMC during the day it is because you have pushed too hard. During the day you cannot fly into a cloud without realising it was there. The same is not true at night. So, it makes sense to retain simulated IMC as part of the night rating: I guess the answer is to transfer the 5 hours into the night rating.
Commenting on a couple of things raised by others:
I love the practical approach of the FAA: be competent to use what is on the aircraft you fly - brilliant!
I would be absolutely opposed to the idea of an IMC rating for PPLs: it would be dangerous. The basic helicopter is not fit for the purpose of going IMC. Non-IR commercial pilots doing CAT at night do something similar to an IMC rating every 6 months to remain "current" for CAT night flying. However, that is in a stabilised twin fitted with an autopilot, AH/DG and radionav equipment and they are commercial pilots with significant experience.[Unless I misread the views of the regulators completely, it would not stand a chance of being permitted. Just look at how EASA are kicking about the current FW IMC rating in the UK].
[Incidentally, I think that the views expressed by a recent PPL(H) ECmech155 above that he would like to do an IMC rating on helicopters shows how our current training leaves a recent PPL(H) with the wrong view of the risks involved in going IMC. I normally avoid making critical references to the posts of others that might be taken personally, but that comment struck me as so eloquent of his misguided views.]
Last edited by Helinut; 26th Aug 2011 at 15:44.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Helinut see thats exactly why I would like more practice in flying in IIMC. because I dont think the 5 hours is enough. I know there are risks.
my understanding of the FW IMC rating that it is something that can be used to get you out of a tight squeeze and down to the nearest aerodome.
I know some use it as an excuse to do other things but I dont think that was the intention of it. correct me please if I am wrong.
I know damn well not to go flying in marginal weather. and my FI has been extremely good at pointing this out.
my understanding of the FW IMC rating that it is something that can be used to get you out of a tight squeeze and down to the nearest aerodome.
I know some use it as an excuse to do other things but I dont think that was the intention of it. correct me please if I am wrong.
I know damn well not to go flying in marginal weather. and my FI has been extremely good at pointing this out.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@EC155mech Thanks for not taking my thought too personally.
It is just so different flying a FW in IMC than an unstabilised helicopter. Set up properly the FW will hold its attitude all by itself.
As I understand the background to the FW IMC Rating it was created to get a FW pilot out of trouble if he was forced to go IMC (which can happen on X/C flights in a FW when the Met forecast is c??p). However, the rating privileges allow you to do far more than that. Firstly, they permit you to elect to go IFR (and plan to fly deliberately IMC). You can fly IFR approach and departure procedures (although to much higher minima than those who hold an IR). [All of that is only in UK airspace, and it does not extend to flying IFR in Class A airspace]. It would only be sensible to make full use of the privileges if you were in IMC flying practice.
I would encourage you to do some more simulated IMC, if you want to. However, if you were looking to do post-licence continuation training, I would also recommend being taken out in poor weather by your FI and being shown how to tell when the vis is getting too bad and how to make a timely flight abort. It is not very difficult, but like most things in flying better to be shown it first and fly it once with an instructor or similarly experienced pilot. As has been discussed elsewhere on PPRUNE recently (See the Bude Cornwall accident thread for example), a major part of this is making correct and timely decisions to avoid going inadvertent IMC in a hele.
It is just so different flying a FW in IMC than an unstabilised helicopter. Set up properly the FW will hold its attitude all by itself.
As I understand the background to the FW IMC Rating it was created to get a FW pilot out of trouble if he was forced to go IMC (which can happen on X/C flights in a FW when the Met forecast is c??p). However, the rating privileges allow you to do far more than that. Firstly, they permit you to elect to go IFR (and plan to fly deliberately IMC). You can fly IFR approach and departure procedures (although to much higher minima than those who hold an IR). [All of that is only in UK airspace, and it does not extend to flying IFR in Class A airspace]. It would only be sensible to make full use of the privileges if you were in IMC flying practice.
I would encourage you to do some more simulated IMC, if you want to. However, if you were looking to do post-licence continuation training, I would also recommend being taken out in poor weather by your FI and being shown how to tell when the vis is getting too bad and how to make a timely flight abort. It is not very difficult, but like most things in flying better to be shown it first and fly it once with an instructor or similarly experienced pilot. As has been discussed elsewhere on PPRUNE recently (See the Bude Cornwall accident thread for example), a major part of this is making correct and timely decisions to avoid going inadvertent IMC in a hele.
Last edited by Helinut; 26th Aug 2011 at 18:03. Reason: To add second para
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 5 nM S of TNT, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years before I started rotary flying, I did an IMC rating. Training was fine under the hood and I passed the course with no problem. A few weeks later and full of confidence, I set out from Shoreham to the Channel Islands with wife and young son. Within 30 minutes from a blue sky start, I ran into solid cloud and a total whiteout for the rest of the trip - something I had never experienced. Thanks to the stability of an old C172 and an autopilot I lived to tell the tale but I sure learnt from that experience.
Then years later I did my PPL(H) in 1999 just before JAA. I therefore did not have to do any instrument flying, but decided to do a few hours later just to try it (dual of course) in a dynamically unstable platform. As a consequence I would never ever go anywhere near IMC in my R22!
Then years later I did my PPL(H) in 1999 just before JAA. I therefore did not have to do any instrument flying, but decided to do a few hours later just to try it (dual of course) in a dynamically unstable platform. As a consequence I would never ever go anywhere near IMC in my R22!
