Flying Blind - Why VFR pilots get into trouble in the clouds

Three pilots, three airplanes - 2 Barons and a Citation jet - three night departures from the same runway at the same airport, followed by the same RH turn. Three fatals into the lake. Complacent? Over confident? Cocky? Really? The one thing I will agree with you is they certainly all had a bad day.
Maybe some things got crossed somewhere

IMC flying has inherent risks
IMC flying should only be done legally, and more importantly (imho) proficiently

But having someone attempt to fly a plane without looking out the window OR without looking at their instruments proves absolutely nothing.. other than you should be looking at your instruments.
 
But since we’re not actually doing anything more, we’re back to Chicken Little.

I guarantee that with the FAA mostly shut down there is nothing being done for sure! I do hope someone is continually addressing this - I believe this issue is one reason that we now can get backup ai’s and std’d autopilots now, as the powers that be realized that tech from the experimental world for instance could help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tech isn’t a solution...it’s only a mask for incompetence.

That’s catchy but it’s not true. Why do we have abs and airbags in cars? Cirrus pilots love their chutes. Commercial pilots have to have autopilots to fly single pilot. And so on... Tech can do a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VFR pilots crash
So how do we correct that? It's illegal to fly into clouds as it is.. so what are the solutions to that? The way I see it there are two options:

A.) make people terrified of it enough that they'll avoid it at all costs, and if in it assume they'll die and best glide it into the ground, or at least out the bottom (didn't old Sopwith pilots get taught to spin planes out of clouds?)

B.) put a bigger focus on the instruments in PPL training so that someone can actually keep a plane in the sky by reference to the instruments..

Maybe this becomes philosophical at some point, but those are really your only two options, and tend to put myself in camp B.. my tie breaker being the whole night VFR thing. Night VFR has bit plenty of people.. so clearly there is a deficiency in VFR pilots and their use of instruments

Granted, as planes become more advanced should you find yourself IMC you have very capable autopilots now, hit LVL, fess up to ATC, and use HDG and ALT to get you back in VMC
 
I guarantee that with the FAA mostly shut down there is nothing being done for sure! I do hope someone is continually addressing this - I believe this issue is one reason that we now can get backup ai’s and std’d autopilots now, as the powers that be realized that tech from the experimental world for instance could help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Given the number of VFR and IFR pilots who are not proficient at instrument flying and yet fly into IMC because they have an autopilot, I’d say more autopilots would only increase the problem.
 
Cirrus pilots love their chutes
honestly that's my biggest deterrent to avoid stupid pilot tricks.. you survive it and have to then live with that shame.. "wasn't that Tantalum? he posts on here sometimes.. he pulled the chute, turns out he ran of out fuel and was in low IMC" <- NO. THANK. YOU
 
I guess I just don’t see A and B as mutually exclusive.

And as for tech it’s totally possible to create an autopilot today that won’t let you hit anything no matter how hard you tried. Won’t let you spiral dive. Won’t let you over speed and so on...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
honestly that's my biggest deterrent to avoid stupid pilot tricks.. you survive it and have to then live with that shame.. "wasn't that Tantalum? he posts on here sometimes.. he pulled the chute, turns out he ran of out fuel and was in low IMC" <- NO. THANK. YOU

Lol, yeah.

But normalization of risk is real. Chute makes people take risks they wouldn’t have otherwise. Just like airbags made people drive faster by pushing back risk. We tend to choose more utility over safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
didn't old Sopwith pilots get taught to spin planes out of clouds?
The Navy was still teaching that at the outset of WWII, even in airplanes like the PB4Y (Navy version of the B-24), because most pilots weren’t trained to fly instruments at that time.
 
Chute makes people take risks they wouldn’t have otherwise
Perhaps. In my case it just makes me feel safer taking the same risk I would have taken anyway. Will I fly an Archer in night IMC from here to say KSBP? Sure.. but I'd MUCH rather do it in the Cirrus. People are different though and I don't speak for the population

I do think having a second engine can invite similar risks
 
Perhaps. In my case it just makes me feel safer taking the same risk I would have taken anyway. Will I fly an Archer in night IMC from here to say KSBP? Sure.. but I'd MUCH rather do it in the Cirrus. People are different though and I don't speak for the population

I do think having a second engine can invite similar risks

Sure.

I’m different - I avoid flying a single at night or over widespread low IMC. But I would and do with a chute or in a twin. So I just threw away some of the safety margin given by the chute/second engine in favor of more utility.

But I do think we can reach a point with both cars and planes where the tech will intervene to prevent us from killing ourselves. We have terrain databases and autopilots and so on...

Hell someday you won’t want to afford to drive your own car because the insurance will be so much higher if you insist on bypassing the tech and drive yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
^yeah the chute / second engine thing is thought provoking. I have an unhealthy obsession with the Aerostar and DA-62. Neither have parachutes, but both have second engines. Would I rather cross the rockies in an SR22T or an Aerostar or a DA-62.. ? The second engine will usually win out, but once you factor in cost and the real world of not having play money that's a lot of extra maintenance and fuel (not so much on the DA 62 as far as fuel is concerned)

I think that's why the twin market slowly died and why the Cirrus sales stayed strong. That $10K-$20K every 10 years for the chute is cheaper than the cost of a second engine out there on the wing, that's basically fulfilling the same purpose
 
^yeah the chute / second engine thing is thought provoking. I have an unhealthy obsession with the Aerostar and DA-62. Neither have parachutes, but both have second engines. Would I rather cross the rockies in an SR22T or an Aerostar or a DA-62.. ? The second engine will usually win out, but once you factor in cost and the real world of not having play money that's a lot of extra maintenance and fuel (not so much on the DA 62 as far as fuel is concerned)

I think that's why the twin market slowly died and why the Cirrus sales stayed strong. That $10K-$20K every 10 years for the chute is cheaper than the cost of a second engine out there on the wing, that's basically fulfilling the same purpose

And yet I’d take the second engine every time. The Aerostar is sexy, and the DA-62 looks like a practical family suburban. I’d love a DA-62.

Pulling the chute is a crap shoot what you’ll land on top of which is scary...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
..damn, I can't imagine spinning a B-24! Do we have any idea of how often this was actually done in practice? I'm sure the tail gunners loved that maneuver
I never askedhow often it occurred, but given some of the other flight test requirements (like terminal velocity dives) that were required at the time, it wouldn’t surprise me if they at least had reasonable spin recovery characteristics.
 
And yet I’d take the second engine every time.
Funny.. if $$ wasn't a real concern then I agree (plus the Aerostar is fast as hell), but when you balance the cost of two overhauls and maintenance vs $1K-$2K per year for a chute reserve the scales tip. And of course your mission. If I lived in Miami and had to fly to Texas often, or lived in Chicago and had to cross the lake often, then the second engine starts getting a lot more value than if my mission is largely within California

Ofcourse, if you have the money for a new DA 62 and its upkeep, then at $1.2M-ish you start to get into the ballpark-ish of turbines..
 
If chicken little keeps VFR pilots out of the clouds, I’m all for it. They should be scared.

Ultimately inexpensive autopilots for GA aircraft maybe the best answer of all. One big straight and level button, altitude hold with heading mode.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Autopilots are great until they are not. I'm training for my IR and have been using AC with pretty advanced autopilots (Garmin and previously STEC). They are great until they aren't and do something you don't expect. Nine times out of ten it's operator error, but occasionally it's not. Had one a week ago, flying a coupled ILS in IMC, about a mile from the FAF the nose pitches up, pretty drastically and the AC climbed about 70 feet before I disconnected and hand flew. It's amazing how quickly it went from everything normal to not very normal at all. We chalked that one up to **** happens. I had another a few weeks earlier where I was flying a coupled VOR approach, I thought every thing was hunky dory, AC doing what it was supposed to, until I notice the AP was in roll mode, not following the VOR, this one was operator error. Again, I disconnected the AP and hand flew, no big deal, but I can see a VFR pilot who cheats and regularly flies IFR with the autopilot could end up in big trouble.

To your point though, inadvertent VFR into IMC knowing how to use the autopilot could be a life saver preventing some accidents.
 
The youtube video description makes sense. It says this video is what happens when you don't trust your instruments and fly seat of pants.
 
My point is more that autopilots have the potential to get tremendously smarter in the future. Why can’t an autopilot calculate the optimal glide solution down to the best runway for instance. Or initiate a turn before hitting terrain, etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Open the pod bay doors Hal
 
Open the pod bay doors Hal

eec858a24db1c2d535a5582eb64332b8.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Most GA planes lack instrument redundancy, and/or solid failure annunciation. That's in the back of my mind now, when in IMC.

I had a sim session with my CFII years ago, and he introduced an AH "slow failure" that almost "killed' me. . .

On the other hand, as a new IR student, he had me do a 180 in actual, to return to VMC, and it was a non-event, in light turbulence.
 
The most important thing is to convince pilots without a instrument ratings that they are going absolutely going to die when they inadvertently find themselves in hard IMC. No chance. 178 seconds. Dead. No matter how hard they try. No matter what they do. Dead pilot flying. It's over. Don't even try to use the instruments because it won't do any good.
 
Ever heard of 178 seconds to live? A few weeks ago my friend Martin Pauly and I went out for breakfast in his A36 Bonanza and we decided to make a video demonstrating him flying "by the seat of his pants" to see how long he could fly before getting into an unusual attitude. Martin is an in extremely high time, experienced, and skilled pilot, and yet it took him about 3 minutes (180 seconds) before we were in an unusual attitude. Watch the video

I’m baffled how this is useful at all. No, a blind person can’t fly an airplane. Didn’t know that was a question that needed to be answered. Of course you’re going to crash if you don’t use the instruments and can’t see outside. Duh.
 
The most important thing is to convince pilots without a instrument ratings that they are going absolutely going to die when they inadvertently find themselves in hard IMC. No chance. 178 seconds. Dead. No matter how hard they try. No matter what they do. Dead pilot flying. It's over. Don't even try to use the instruments because it won't do any good.
No, the most important thing is to give them the training to stay out of IMC or the training to save themselves if they get into IMC. Neither of those is happening.
 
Ultimately inexpensive autopilots for GA aircraft maybe the best answer of all. One big straight and level button, altitude hold with heading mode.

That will save their bacon and endanger the rest of us. I've had too many calls from ATC while on an IFR flight in IMC about VFR traffic that if they weren't in the clouds they damn well didn't have VFR cloud separation. Those autopilots will give them a "safe" way through the clouds, except they can't see the other traffic; "but I have ADS-B in!" :rolleyes:
 
That will save their bacon and endanger the rest of us. I've had too many calls from ATC while on an IFR flight in IMC about VFR traffic that if they weren't in the clouds they damn well didn't have VFR cloud separation. Those autopilots will give them a "safe" way through the clouds, except they can't see the other traffic; "but I have ADS-B in!" :rolleyes:

Yep. Same autopilots can be programmed to avoid traffic. It’s only a matter of time.

But not sure I agree with withholding life saving tech because some might abuse it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
But not sure I agree with withholding life saving tech because some might abuse it.

I certainly didn't say anything about withholding it. Just a little about side effects / unintended consequences.

I think the new autopilots are great, especially the lower price point. I hope more people upgrade their planes with them.

I just recognize that some pilots will use them as a "safe" transition from or to VFR on top.
 
Yep. Same autopilots can be programmed to avoid traffic. It’s only a matter of time.

But not sure I agree with withholding life saving tech because some might abuse it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s easy enough to find examples where pilots flying very technologically capable airplanes still lost control in IMC, including ones where the initial failure WAS the technology.

It may be within the realm of reality to make autopilots that can do a lot of stuff, but I have yet to see one that can fix itself, or even identify every possible failure point.
 
Last edited:
Yes sir.. and I stay current, and proficient. I fly in Southern California so not as much actual as I'd like, but I do manage to squeeze in at least a couple actual hours in each year (and it's mostly when I'm cross country and outside of the local area.. yeah there's a marine later but you're in the clouds a minute or two, so that hardly counts). I'm well aware of the serious attention it deserves, and it's unnerving nature. My biggest surprise the first few times I was IMC was how the plane flies different and the turbulence is also different. It's scary the first few times, but like anything in life you learn to accept that fear and mitigate it through your training. Emotions are a *huge* part of the reason people lose their marbles in IMC. You theoretically have all the tools in front of you in the cockpit to stay right side up.. but it's the leading cause of accidents according to the NTSB. Why? Because people panic and over control the daylights out of the plane, and revert back to their human instincts of flying by the "seat of your pants"

Yes, it's scary to blindly (literally) trust your instruments, but what other option do you have? Freak out? And it's unlikely every instrument in your plane will crap itself at once, but even if it does that compass and the little ball will work, and so will your altimeter (worst case scenario you smash the altimeter window). With those 3 instruments you can stay coordinated, and straight (no turning) and level (altimeter not moving). Really, people should be referencing all of that when in IMC, not just the attitude indicator. I've had an AI precess quite bad (POS club rental plane) in IMC with the thing showing a 5-15 degree left bank straight and level. So you check against TC, DG, compass, etc.


It always will, and the moment it doesn't you have to take a step back as one may be getting over confident. I always breath a small sigh of relief coming out the top (or bottom) of a cloud

**It is certainly unnerving, but it shouldn't be deadly in an otherwise perfectly good airplane. One thing I do when I know I'm going to encounter IMC is transition to instruments before I am in the cloud.. forget what's outside and keep your eyes in the plane.. that keeps me emotionally grounded

Ice though, that scares me much more. Even in a FIKI plane ice is scary stuff

The post triggered me and what may be seen as an "aggressive" response because the answers to this problem of people losing their cool in IMC isn't to teach pilots to best-glide it into the ground or that they're guaranteed to die. Emotions, in general, need to be checked at the door when flying, I mean it's basically on the IMSAFE list. People should avoid clouds because it's illegal to enter them if they're not flying IFR. But people should still be able to fly the plane by reference to instruments only. I mean, night VFR might as well be IMC. Ever flown over the AZ desert under a high overcast layer with no moon? It is pitch, freaking, black. You're using instruments there
5 to 15 degrees of bank while straight and level? Sounds like a Plus One Flyers airplane.......
 
I think much of the debate could be solved with video of a or some VFR trained pilot(s) in actual IMC with competent instructor along but silent and unhelpful in anyway until they must be. I think both videos would be helpful- one for not trusting instruments as the one above, the other "trying to use instruments in actual IMC but only having the training one gets in primary training". That will demonstrate how difficult it is, how close to being your last bit of time on earth it is. To "prove" via video of it actually playing out, that our 3 hours of hood time umpteen years ago is not sufficient. I feel like one of the problems is the fear factor we are presented with doesn't bite us as deeply as it should because its only statistics. We hear scary statistics all the time, we become somewhat immune to them. 178 seconds, 1 in X people get cancer, 5 of XX will get this, that or other scary disease, XXX our XXXXX will die from drunk drivers, etc. We become immune of those fears, we "know" them but we don't live boots shaking daily, to a degree on many we can't or we wouldn't get through a day. The fear of VFR to IMC is as real as it gets, but stats don't always drive that point home.

I consider myself a very cautious VFR pilot and not one to push the envelope. I know those stats, I don't doubt their reality, but I would be a liar if I didn't say there is that little voice inside that says, "If it ever did happen, you wouldn't be part of that statistic, you enjoyed hood time in training and did well, it would be scary but you could keep it level and follow vectors, come on, how hard can it be???" I know that voice is wrong, I've not let it get me in trouble by not listening to it. I know intellectually its beyond my scope of training and therefore make decisions to avoid it at all costs, but statistically as a whole we do fail at that. I have a good idea its often because of that little voice I hear, and I bet if most VFR pilots were completely candid, that they hear too, intellectual wisdom on the topic has always won out for me, but obviously for others it hasn't. I'm also not so arrogant to think my "wisdom" is infallable and can't possibly ever not win out. Yes some of those that do it are boldly stupid, arrogant and over confident, some also are good pilots but bearing the curse of being human errored. Being able to see our fellow VFR pilots try to use their 3 hours of hood time to save their butts could make that statistic come to "life" more, to grab deeper into the soul so to speak.

I think everything, EVERYTHING, should be done to prevent these occurrences BUT we also need to provide a sliver of hope to save your hide, or we only further keep those statistics as bad as they are or make them worse by scaring the VFR population so much that if there ever is that terrible error of finding oneself in IMC that they may as well give up and push the yoke forward to ensure it's swift... You can keep the stats as scary as they are in reality but giving a sliver of hope that if one doesn't panic they have to give it their all and maybe just maybe can make it has to be done to, so to not feel a purposeful dive would just be simpler...


 
I think much of the debate could be solved with video of a or some VFR trained pilot(s) in actual IMC with competent instructor along but silent and unhelpful in anyway until they must be. I think both videos would be helpful- one for not trusting instruments as the one above, the other "trying to use instruments in actual IMC but only having the training one gets in primary training". That will demonstrate how difficult it is, how close to being your last bit of time on earth it is. To "prove" via video of it actually playing out, that our 3 hours of hood time umpteen years ago is not sufficient. I feel like one of the problems is the fear factor we are presented with doesn't bite us as deeply as it should because its only statistics. We hear scary statistics all the time, we become somewhat immune to them. 178 seconds, 1 in X people get cancer, 5 of XX will get this, that or other scary disease, XXX our XXXXX will die from drunk drivers, etc. We become immune of those fears, we "know" them but we don't live boots shaking daily, to a degree on many we can't or we wouldn't get through a day. The fear of VFR to IMC is as real as it gets, but stats don't always drive that point home.
I like this idea. I will plan to make a video of this at my next opportunity and share it here so we can see the results!
 
Sounds like a Plus One Flyers airplane
..no comment haha

The club is pretty great in general, but I haven't rented from there for personal reasons in a very long time since I have access now to a much better airplane (no comparison really). There are some solid planes in the fleet there, but also a lot of planes I personally would not take into IMC or fly at night. But frankly, outside of ECAC my experience with the rental fleet in general has been fairly mediocre
 
I like this idea. I will plan to make a video of this at my next opportunity and share it here so we can see the results!
Thanks that will be interesting to see. What is hard (or impossible) to recreate is the psychological effects of getting "boxed" in.. cruising along at 6,500 and the scattered ceiling at 4,500 goes to broken to overcast by the time you get to your destination.. now what? There comes that panic and the tunnel vision
 
Thanks that will be interesting to see. What is hard (or impossible) to recreate is the psychological effects of getting "boxed" in.. cruising along at 6,500 and the scattered ceiling at 4,500 goes to broken to overcast by the time you get to your destination.. now what? There comes that panic and the tunnel vision
Any volunteers? :DI’m based in Cedar Rapids (KCID) if you’re interested
 
Any volunteers? :DI’m based in Cedar Rapids (KCID) if you’re interested
There are plenty of people out here that would volunteer, but we're not exactly close! San Diego, KMYF

Look forward to seeing that though
 
Thanks that will be interesting to see. What is hard (or impossible) to recreate is the psychological effects of getting "boxed" in.. cruising along at 6,500 and the scattered ceiling at 4,500 goes to broken to overcast by the time you get to your destination.. now what? There comes that panic and the tunnel vision

And the most important psychological effect, no safety blanket in the right seat...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I liked the OPs video. His "victim", Martin Pauly is a seasoned IFR pilot who does his own videos in a Bonanza. The purpose of the video was to demonstrate what happens when you fly an airplane only by reference to the sensations you are feeling. Martin stayed in control for a long time, but he is a seasoned instrument pilot who has had it drilled into him to not rely on what he feels to control the airplane when in IMC, but to trust the instruments. So for this test, he instinctively knew not to react to what he was feeling, that it was better to not upset the airplane in this situation. It took him much longer than it probably would have for most VFR only pilot, but he did end up in a situation where had it been allowed to continue would have resulted in an accident. Powerful stuff in my opinion.
 
Back
Top