The IMC LOC by the Almost IA Pilot

[Jaybird180]

This month's issue of Plane and Pilot (sorry I can't find the link to the online article, I get the print edition - anyone?) has an article about an accident that occurred in 2003 with a 250TT something IR student with 57 training hours. The student was 'close to his checkride' according to the CFII and he had 19 VFR transition training hours in his new SR-22 (please no Cirrus bashing in this thread).

The family sued Cirrus and UND and lost after an appeal. Here's the NTSB report http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/ouemaq45drqz2wvnc2yfvt551/I08272012120000.pdf

I was thinking about the article and what caused the pilot to succumb to spatial disorientation and I think I have a theory:

The desire to maintain VFR in IMC conditions is the culprit. No seriously, that's it! I theorize that if one accepts that he is in IMC conditions, and flys the airplane without regard for what is outside the window, chances of a successful outcome increase.

I think VFR-IMC accidents always include PANIC. And it is PANIC that kills.

 

[TMetzinger]

Similar article in AOPA I think, or maybe in Flying.

I know of instrument-rated pilots who tried "scud-running" and came to grief (dying), and I agree that to be safe in marginal VMC or IMC one needs to commit to flying on the instruments. And if one cannot commit to flying on the instruments, one shouldn't be flying in those conditions. It's a powerful temptation when you can see "something" out the window to try and remain visual.

 

[comanchepilot]

had an instructor a long time ago tell me that he used to take his IR students on BFR's into clouds on a short flight plan to test how they reacted when they went into the clouds . . . he knew the ones who would be trouble and whom he would subject to an intense IFR section of the BFR.

anyone who tensed up, hunched over the yoke, or exhibited physical signs of anxiety who when confronted with unexpected events did not react well. He had no science behind it- just 40 years of instructing and being a training pilot with United . . . his name was Charles Beard . . . and he used to fly the DC-8's from JFK-HNL 5 trips a month back in the 70's. some of you east coast guys might have heard of him . . . .

 

[gismo]

This month's issue of Plane and Pilot (sorry I can't find the link to the online article, I get the print edition - anyone?) has an article about an accident that occurred in 2003 with a 250TT something IR student with 57 training hours. The student was 'close to his checkride' according to the CFII and he had 19 VFR transition training hours in his new SR-22 (please no Cirrus bashing in this thread).

The family sued Cirrus and UND and lost after an appeal. Here's the NTSB report http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/ouemaq45drqz2wvnc2yfvt551/I08272012120000.pdf

I was thinking about the article and what caused the pilot to succumb to spatial disorientation and I think I have a theory:

The desire to maintain VFR in IMC conditions is the culprit. No seriously, that's it! I theorize that if one accepts that he is in IMC conditions, and flys the airplane without regard for what is outside the window, chances of a successful outcome increase.

I think VFR-IMC accidents always include PANIC. And it is PANIC that kills.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Panic always precedes the loss of control but I could go with anxiety/stress as a secondary factor in many VFR-IMC LOC accidents. It is probably true that a VFR pilot will perform better in IMC if they focus totally on the flight instruments and manage to ignore the distractions outside the airplane but that itself is a skill most VFR pilots lack.

 

[jesse]

I teach my students to 180. After which point if that doesn't work they climb, communicate, confess, and comply. I run through that drill with them several times with them communicating to me as if I was ATC. Then pretending to be ATC I clear them to the minimum altitude I can with that not working, then I vector them to VMC which doesn't work either, I ultimately vector them to the ILS and teach them just enough about the ILS that I tell them they might have a 50/50 chance of surviving if they ever need to do an ILS in actual.

I do everything I can to give them the tools to survive and I amplify that should they ever need to use those tools they'll have a chance at surviving but they'll still have about a very real chance of being killed and they need to avoid flying into such weather in the first place.

 

[Jaybird180]

I teach my students to 180. After which point if that doesn't work they climb, communicate, confess, and comply. I run through that drill with them several times with them communicating to me as if I was ATC. Then pretending to be ATC I clear them to the minimum altitude I can with that not working, then I vector them to VMC which doesn't work either, I ultimately vector them to the ILS and teach them just enough about the ILS that I tell them they might have a 50/50 chance of surviving if they ever need to do an ILS in actual.

I do everything I can to give them the tools to survive and I amplify that should they ever need to use those tools they'll have a chance at surviving but they'll still have about a very real chance of being killed and they need to avoid flying into such weather in the first place.

We are all taught to 180. Sadly it's not working. What do you differently to simulate the reality part of it so the lesson sinks in? Fear reaction and all?

 

[weilke]

We are all taught to 180. Sadly it's not working. What do you differently to simulate the reality part of it so the lesson sinks in? Fear reaction and all?

The 180 doesn't work because it is rare for someone to fly into a well defined 'wall' of IMC that one can just pop right out of after a 180. The more common scenario seems to be that people fly into progressively poorer visibility and decreasing ceilings and end up losing the horizon and ground contact. A 180 just puts you into a different part of the clag. I sometimes wish it wouldn't even be taught as a strategy as it seems to give some folks the idea 'oh, VFR into IMC is no problem for me, I just turn around'. 'climb confess comply' is imnho the only strategy that offers a chance of survival.

I dont have the reference, but someone has shown that IR rated pilots still kill themselves in VFR into IMC accidents at a significant rate. Attitude instrument flying as a skill is only about 1/2 of what keeps you safe in IMC, having a plan, staying at safe altitudes and being tied into 'the system' does the rest.

The idiot in the Cirrus was scooting along at treetop level when he flew into a cloud, I doubt that the outcome would have been any better had he just been a little bit better in attitude instrument flying (or able to use his autopilot as the lawsuit alledged).

 

[Dr. O]

Been hanging around airports for a long time... As a fixture in the pilots lounge with a coffee in hand I can usually identify those who are likely to come to grief down the road... Been right about 80% of the time so far...
The one I messed up on most recently was a 100% sure thing to drive his Cirrus (that again) into a smoking hole -- then one day he scared himself so bad that he left the airplane on the ramp of a distant airport, flew home commercial, sold the plane, and has not flown since...
OTOH, a local who I thought was a solid pilot lost control of his Skyhawk in a cross wind landing, went into a grove of trees head on and died - and wasn't found for 3 days...

It is a strange business we indulge in, these airplanes...

 

[jesse]

We are all taught to 180. Sadly it's not working. What do you differently to simulate the reality part of it so the lesson sinks in? Fear reaction and all?

It works quite well - you only hear about the people that kill themselves. The other people don't. There are by far more people accidentally flying into degrading weather and surviving then being killed.

As to simulating the reality - if you read what I wrote - in my scenario the 180 DOES NOT WORK. After that the student climbs, communicates, confesses, and complies with ATC. I then vector the student to a descent to MDA which doesn't work either. I ultimately tell the student that their only chance is the ILS since they don't have enough fuel to make it to VMC. I then teach them just enough about the ILS that they're able to fly it. I have a very serious conversation with them afterwords telling them that if they actually have to do what we just did they might have a 50/50 chance of surviving and to never ever place themselves in such situations.

My entire "you just flew into degrading weather which became IMC" routine takes about a 1.5 hour lesson. All dedicated to that scenario. I don't do that lesson until we've done a lesson or two already on hood flying.

Most instructors just have their private students fly around for 3 hours under the hood and apply no scenario.

 

[Jaybird180]

It works quite well - you only hear about the people that kill themselves. The other people don't. There are by far more people accidentally flying into degrading weather and surviving then being killed.

Touche

As to simulating the reality - if you read what I wrote - in my scenario the 180 DOES NOT WORK. After that the student climbs, communicates, confesses, and complies with ATC. I then vector the student to a descent to MDA which doesn't work either. I ultimately tell the student that their only chance is the ILS since they don't have enough fuel to make it to VMC. I then teach them just enough about the ILS that they're able to fly it. I have a very serious conversation with them afterwords telling them that if they actually have to do what we just did they might have a 50/50 chance of surviving and to never ever place themselves in such situations.

My entire "you just flew into degrading weather which became IMC" routine takes about a 1.5 hour lesson. All dedicated to that scenario. I don't do that lesson until we've done a lesson or two already on hood flying.

Most instructors just have their private students fly around for 3 hours under the hood and apply no scenario.

Does the student get the opportunity to devise their own solution? IOW give them the '120 seconds to live' demonstration (which was flawed, but another discussion).

 

[jesse]

Touche



Does the student get the opportunity to devise their own solution? IOW give them the '120 seconds to live' demonstration (which was flawed, but another discussion).

Given where they're at in their pilot training I do not give them an opportunity to devise a solution since the entire experience is simulated anyhow and their solution will most likely be way less than ideal. It's much better to take all of my experience and teach them what I personally believe gives them the best chance of survival. I explain why they are best off doing what I suggest. Should they ever encounter the situation later they will likely have gained experience and judgement and may or may not do what I taught them. At that point it's out of my hands.

 

[Henning]

This month's issue of Plane and Pilot (sorry I can't find the link to the online article, I get the print edition - anyone?) has an article about an accident that occurred in 2003 with a 250TT something IR student with 57 training hours. The student was 'close to his checkride' according to the CFII and he had 19 VFR transition training hours in his new SR-22 (please no Cirrus bashing in this thread).

The family sued Cirrus and UND and lost after an appeal. Here's the NTSB report http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/ouemaq45drqz2wvnc2yfvt551/I08272012120000.pdf

I was thinking about the article and what caused the pilot to succumb to spatial disorientation and I think I have a theory:

The desire to maintain VFR in IMC conditions is the culprit. No seriously, that's it! I theorize that if one accepts that he is in IMC conditions, and flys the airplane without regard for what is outside the window, chances of a successful outcome increase.

I think VFR-IMC accidents always include PANIC. And it is PANIC that kills.

I agree, but you can eliminate the the first part or expand it to include most accidents that come from basically innocuous failures as well. There are two types of people in a facing death situation. Those whose minds disconnect and they view the situation from what seems to be an outsiders perspective. Other go into a state of utter calm clarity where the mind seems to work at best I could measure 15 times normal speed. Both types though are calm at the end once that threshold of realization that death is imminant is crossed which is reassuring that death itself will be a reasonably peaceful experience.

BTW, LOC typically denotes 'loss of consciousness'.

 

[Jaybird180]

Given where they're at in their pilot training I do not give them an opportunity to devise a solution since the entire experience is simulated anyhow and their solution will most likely be way less than ideal. It's much better to take all of my experience and teach them what I personally believe gives them the best chance of survival. I explain why they are best off doing what I suggest. Should they ever encounter the situation later they will likely have gained experience and judgement and may or may not do what I taught them. At that point it's out of my hands.

Well I guess you know each student best, but I imagine there are personaliy type that would see your scenario as a Kobayashi Maru, only to look for the Kirk solution, thus learning something other that what you intended. I could see that

 

[jesse]

Well I guess you know each student best, but I imagine there are personaliy type that would see your scenario as a Kobayashi Maru, only to look for the Kirk solution, thus learning something other that what you intended. I could see that

I am a pretty firm believer in the law of primacy and make an effort to teach things correctly (at least what I believe to be correctly) before I let students blindly try and teach themselves.

Primacy, the state of being first, often creates a strong, almost unshakable, impression. Things learned first create a strong impression in the mind that is difficult to erase. For the instructor, this means that what is taught must be right the first time. For the student, it means that learning must be right. “Unteaching” wrong first impressions is harder than teaching them right the first time. If, for example, a student learns a faulty technique, the instructor will have a difficult task correcting bad habits and “reteaching” correct ones.

 

[flyingron]

Not necessarily panic, but it doesn't help. One of the issues that kills people is not that they can't fly on instruments, but they don't realize they SHOULD be flying on instruments. Rather than hunkering down on the gauges, they continue to stare out in the murk at absent or misleading cues until they are so spatial disoriented to beyond recovery.

One of the things you is to get on the gauges. Simulated IMC is particularly BAD for this as putting on the view limiting device is a sure cue you need to fly on the instruments. The first time someone flies into an actual cloud, the question is how long does it take them from looking outside to getting on the gauges. As you get proficient it's automatic. Even in technical VMC conditions, I'll tell my wife, I'm going on the gauges. It's her cue to watch for traffic rather than just zoning out.

 

[weilke]

One of the things you is to get on the gauges. Simulated IMC is particularly BAD for this as putting on the view limiting device is a sure cue you need to fly on the instruments. The first time someone flies into an actual cloud, the question is how long does it take them from looking outside to getting on the gauges. As you get proficient it's automatic. Even in technical VMC conditions, I'll tell my wife, I'm going on the gauges. It's her cue to watch for traffic rather than just zoning out.

During the hours under the hood for my IR, I thought about designing a view limiting device that uses a miniature cmos camera and LCD to blank out everything but the instrument panel (using modified LCD welding goggles) and some fiduciary markers on the panel. The only cue left would be the instruments and possibly shadows ON the instrument panel, all the peripheral cues we have right now would be blanked out. The CFII would have the option to dial in various meteorological conditions, gradual loss of horizon, low 'raggedy' ceiling etc.

The problem is, a pair of those would probably cost $1500 to make in small series and unless required, no instrument training outfit or student would buy them if the alternative is a $12.50 pair of foggles.

 

[BurtM]

This month's issue of Plane and Pilot (sorry I can't find the link to the online article, I get the print edition - anyone?) has an article about an accident that occurred in 2003 with a 250TT something IR student with 57 training hours. The student was 'close to his checkride' according to the CFII and he had 19 VFR transition training hours in his new SR-22 (please no Cirrus bashing in this thread).

The family sued Cirrus and UND and lost after an appeal. Here's the NTSB report http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/ouemaq45drqz2wvnc2yfvt551/I08272012120000.pdf

I was thinking about the article and what caused the pilot to succumb to spatial disorientation and I think I have a theory:

The desire to maintain VFR in IMC conditions is the culprit. No seriously, that's it! I theorize that if one accepts that he is in IMC conditions, and flys the airplane without regard for what is outside the window, chances of a successful outcome increase.

I think VFR-IMC accidents always include PANIC. And it is PANIC that kills.

My 2 pesos:

Airplanes tend not to crash themselves. It takes a really big environmental factor to upset a stable trimmed airplane and make it hit the ground, like a microburst, a major windshear event or some such unlikely thing.

I doubt that "PANIC" is what causes crashes. Disorientation combined with incorrect corrective action - that may lead to a panic reaction like trying to pull back on the yoke to correct a diving turn. Lack of understanding of flight dynamics is probably what really causes crashes - the last few seconds of panic just seals the deal.

I think it's useful to know that sometimes the best thing to do is to pull the throttle back and just let go of the controls. There's an old book called, "Stick and Rudder" that is a good resource, even though it was written back in the 1920s or maybe even earlier than that.

 

[wabower]

As CFII's I think we are somewhat influenced by what worked for us. I hated the hood because of the physical limitations that made it necessary to move my head rather than just my eyes for tasks such as tuning radios and monitoring engine gages that were out of sight when wearing anything on my head. Prior to IR training, I hadn't realized that I was instinctively an eyeball mover rather than a neck mover, so didn't initially understand why the hood was such a chore.

For me, flying actual IMC without an apparatus was a walk in the park and since I knew my life depended on flying the gages without peeking (or would once the other guy got out) the temptation was easy to overcome.

But I vividly remember a few seconds that seemed like an eternity during one transition from solid-grey-no-visual-clues into an area of less-stable air with some clearing but some cumulus buildups in the distance. The edge of one particular buildup was angled ~45 degrees to the horizon with a well-defined edge that was almost a straight-line. As the plane broke out of the murk, this big sucker was sitting at about 1 o'clock in the windshield and the sudden visual image created the sensation that the plane rather than the cloud edge was tilted at 45 degrees. After thousands of hours of IMC, that has been the only time I really had to fight the urge to follow my britches rather than my dials.

 

[BurtM]

But I vividly remember a few seconds that seemed like an eternity during one transition from solid-grey-no-visual-clues into an area of less-stable air with some clearing but some cumulus buildups in the distance. The edge of one particular buildup was angled ~45 degrees to the horizon with a well-defined edge that was almost a straight-line. As the plane broke out of the murk, this big sucker was sitting at about 1 o'clock in the windshield and the sudden visual image created the sensation that the plane rather than the cloud edge was tilted at 45 degrees. After thousands of hours of IMC, that has been the only time I really had to fight the urge to follow my britches rather than my dials.

That sounds eerily similar to the FAA spatial disorientation simulator that they used to tote around to airshows around the country. Sobering stuff when you learn you can't trust your eyes or your butt... Been a long time since I've been to an airshow, but that was back when they had the 727 that they used to demonstrate wingtip vortices from big airplanes. Maybe 1996-1997?

 

[onwards]

Jesse, I'd love to take that lesson with you. Sounds like an excellent one. Wish you were closer to here!

 

[peppy]

You see a lot of talk about degrading basic skills as pilots fly more extensively equipped planes. What I think should be discussed is pilots dying due to not using the available automation. When I was a VFR only pilot and transitioned to an SR22 my first transition lesson involved discussing inadvertent flight into IMC. My instructor asked what I would do and I gave the stock answer of "Do a 180." His reply was a sharp "No!" He said that I had no business hand flying in the clouds with my level of instrument experience. He told me to hit the heading sync button on the HSI, the heading mode on the AP, then altitude hold and finally to use the heading knob to execute the 180.

 

[Henning]

You see a lot of talk about degrading basic skills as pilots fly more extensively equipped planes. What I think should be discussed is pilots dying due to not using the available automation. When I was a VFR only pilot and transitioned to an SR22 my first transition lesson involved discussing inadvertent flight into IMC. My instructor asked what I would do and I gave the stock answer of "Do a 180." His reply was a sharp "No!" He said that I had no business hand flying in the clouds with my level of instrument experience. He told me to hit the heading sync button on the HSI, the heading mode on the AP, then altitude hold and finally to use the heading knob to execute the 180.

Are you saying you had an instrument rating and your CFII told you you don't have the required skill to hand fly in actual?

 

[Everskyward]

Are you saying you had an instrument rating and your CFII told you you don't have the required skill to hand fly in actual?

That's not what peppy was saying.

You see a lot of talk about degrading basic skills as pilots fly more extensively equipped planes. What I think should be discussed is pilots dying due to not using the available automation. When I was a VFR only pilot and transitioned to an SR22 my first transition lesson involved discussing inadvertent flight into IMC. My instructor asked what I would do and I gave the stock answer of "Do a 180." His reply was a sharp "No!" He said that I had no business hand flying in the clouds with my level of instrument experience. He told me to hit the heading sync button on the HSI, the heading mode on the AP, then altitude hold and finally to use the heading knob to execute the 180.

 

[EppyGA]

You see a lot of talk about degrading basic skills as pilots fly more extensively equipped planes. What I think should be discussed is pilots dying due to not using the available automation. When I was a VFR only pilot and transitioned to an SR22 my first transition lesson involved discussing inadvertent flight into IMC. My instructor asked what I would do and I gave the stock answer of "Do a 180." His reply was a sharp "No!" He said that I had no business hand flying in the clouds with my level of instrument experience. He told me to hit the heading sync button on the HSI, the heading mode on the AP, then altitude hold and finally to use the heading knob to execute the 180.

Hey, I think I heard this story.

 

[Henning]

That's not what peppy was saying.

Ok, good, I knew that something was off in the way I read that...

 

[peppy]

Hey, I think I heard this story.

 

[DutchessFlier]

During the hours under the hood for my IR, I thought about designing a view limiting device that uses a miniature cmos camera and LCD to blank out everything but the instrument panel (using modified LCD welding goggles) and some fiduciary markers on the panel. The only cue left would be the instruments and possibly shadows ON the instrument panel, all the peripheral cues we have right now would be blanked out. The CFII would have the option to dial in various meteorological conditions, gradual loss of horizon, low 'raggedy' ceiling etc.

The problem is, a pair of those would probably cost $1500 to make in small series and unless required, no instrument training outfit or student would buy them if the alternative is a $12.50 pair of foggles.

Just an FYI:

I wear glasses and need a solution to multiple ear hooks trying to fit under my headset. I took a pair of those clear plastic safety goggles that fit over my glasses with the elastic headband that you can buy in any Home Depot, etc. I covered the goggles front lenses and the sides with blue painters tape and then duct tape over that, leaving just enough of an open area at the bottom of the front lens to see my panel. I had absolutely NO peripheral vision outside of my main panel and over toward the radio stack. The elastic solved the headset problem as well, and it was easy to pull them off when I went 'visual' at the end of a practice approach. Did all my IR training and the checkride using them. Still use them. Total investment was minimal. YMMV

 

[bbchien]

I am a pretty firm believer in the law of primacy and make an effort to teach things correctly (at least what I believe to be correctly) before I let students blindly try and teach themselves.

I share Jesse's approach. I get the ILS done in the first hour (they always fail), and then they spent an hour on command and control. Then we do the ILS again, and they stumble out the bottom.

The lesson is retained.

The problem is, a pair of those would probably cost $1500 to make in small series and unless required, no instrument training outfit or student would buy them if the alternative is a $12.50 pair of foggles.

Actually, the alternative is a $0.50 copy of "the Best Hood" (Scored, folded manila file folder, looks like a Francis Hood), with a piece of elastic stapled to each side.

Some years ago I popped out over the ocean in what was then the WVI LOC 1 (it's now "2"). The fog above was tilted and It took a good three seconds to resolve which one was the true horizon....esp because the beach took 10 additional seconds to appear.

Very unsettling, though I had seen it once before many many moons ago in a far off ocean....

 

[jwriteclub]

He told me to hit the heading sync button on the HSI, the heading mode on the AP, then altitude hold and finally to use the heading knob to execute the 180.

I strongly agree. Not every plane will have an autopilot, obviously. If a VFR pilot wanders into IMC, the autopilot (if they have it) is the single best tool available to them.

I actually worry about this in my own flying. When in actual (very rare now that I live in Arizona), I typically use the AP significantly when flying. Because of this, I always make myself do practice IMC work without the AP to make sure I can still hand fly in IMC and handle the nav workload while hand flying.