Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by brien23, Oct 8, 2018.
Your Google is as good as mine.
We’re those incidents related to imc??
No, hood work is required for Sport, but there is no minimum time requirement.
I did 3 hours after getting my Sport ticket. Regardless of whether I do my PPL, I wanted the instrument and unusual attitudes training. Even if not required, I think it should be encouraged for all SPL pilots.
Should also be part of BFRs for all VFR pilots.
Pilots lose their cool, panic sets in, so level of ‘competency’ may go out the window.
Remember anyone this recent (12/2015) accident in Piper Lance in which the family of 5 perished outside of Bakersfield, CA. He lasted just about 3 mins after entering clouds. He had 270 hrs, 3 hrs under the hood practice and even 1 hr of actual IMC time.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Yes, it is. I will look it up for you tomorrow if you don’t find it by then, but I’m not going to do it right this minute.
See FAR 61.93 (e) 12. Requires training on instruments before solo xc for all student pilots flying single engine airplanes. This covers both PPL and SPL students, but doesn’t impose a time minimum.
FAR 61.93(e) 12
"For student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate, the provisions of this paragraph only apply when receiving training for cross-country flight in an airplane that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS."
Only if the Vh is above 87 kts CAS
Agreed. Only if Vh is over 87. Which it is for just about every modern LSA.
Happened to me once. Came out of nowhere. Thankfully I had just passed an airport 2000 ft below me. Descending 180 and found the runway in maybe half mile viz.
And by the way if you have a sim this is one of those things that can be a helpful training tool regarding reliance on a solid instrument scan. Yeah, it won’t help with the disorientation and real life stress, but learning to trust your instruments is a solid plus factor.
Mea culpa. I added "almost" to my original statement. But as you pointed out, there is no minimum hour requirement, nor is it evaluated on the checkride. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
I find hoodwork a common weak area during flight reviews. I would say about 50% of them have trouble with it. When you narrow the sample size down to weekend warriors who are over about 50-60 years old, it is more like >90%. This of course, is only my personal experience and may not extrapolate.
BTW, I used to have an airplane that was self-leveling, like a balsa model airplane. If one flew into IMC in it, he could survive if he refrained from touching the stick and put feet on the floor. Coincidentally, it had no gyroscopic instruments at all, not even T&B. I was always wondering why all airplanes are not built like that. In my Mooney, it's 100% death spiral if one releases all the controls.
Like RC planes with SAFE technology built into the receiver. Can’t overbank, can’t go inverted. Can’t spin. I use SAFE mode on my Timber for dusk flying. The lighting system is awesome on that thing.
In theory you could build that plane, and in case of an engine out it would auto land at the nearest airport, or steer to the clearest looking terrain and pull the chute taking into account current winds.
In theory that could be built. At which point you don’t really need pilots anymore.
This 178 seconds to live length of time came out of a specific study, "The 180 degree Turn Experiment", published by the University of Illinois in 1954 and funded by the AOPA. 20 subjects were chosen for the study, all PP-ASAEL, none with an IR, spanning 30-1625 total hours in the air. They all flew a Bonanza with only airspeed indicator, altimeter, magnetic compass, turn indicator and engine instruments uncovered. Also the windows were darkened and the pilot wore goggles to greatly reduce outside visibility. And the Bonanza was loaded at its most rearward CG allowed. All pilots had to fly certain tasks including a 180 deg turn.
That's the FAA's version of Reefer Madness.
I had watched that video prior to my inadvertently flying into the clouds. I was flying over the swamps north of Tampa and near the gulf at night. It was difficult flying even before I entered the clouds as there were few lights on the ground, no stars. I was at 5500 ft and at first didn’t do anything thinking I might fly out of the cloud soon. When I didn’t I started thinking about the video and rushed things thinking I didn’t have much time. My first thought was to do a 180 and decend, which I did, always with the thought that I only had seconds to live. I did not have a autopilot at that time.
I of coarse survived, I did have about 20 hours hood time previously over the last 4 years. And I think the main thing is I remained calm and talked myself through it. But I was definatly conserned and it was not like wearing a hood knowing you could remove it and having a instructor in the next seat. When I got out of the clouds I was still banked a little but I was able to fly to Ocala at 2000 ft and land safely.
Since that incident I no longer fly at night, and I had a wing leveler and basic autopilot installed. I need to get a few more hours of hood time just for practice. I don’t think I would use a IFR rating enough to be proficient, but the hood time would still help if I got stuck on top and needed to decend through a cloud deck or rise thru one if I got stuck below with rising terrain.
I think watching the video actually added to my stress at the time.
Not pilots without an instrument rating, pilots with absolutely no instrument training of any form whatsoever.
Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
As in ain't never been under a hood before.
And, once they had just a little hood time and training, they were all able to make the 180 using the instruments without problems.
178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171
The important thing it to convince VFR pilots that the situation is hopeless
162 161 160 159 158
in spite of the fact that you probably have some training under a hood in the use of instruments.
154 153 152 151 Your heart is pounding
And have been trained to make a 180 using the instruments
144 143 142 141 You break out in a sweat
(Unlike the guys in the study).
139 138 137 136 135
Because if you are convinced that you are going to die
119 118 117 116 115
you are much more likely to panic.
90 89 88 87 86 85
And, if you fail to panic,
78 77 76 75 74
if you keep calm and fly the airplane,
66 65 64 63 62 61 less than one minute to live
you might apply your training
53 52 51
(even if you are a bit rusty)
47 46 45 44 43 42 the world is spinning around
make a 180,
15 14 13 12 11 10 seconds to live
9 8 7 6 5 4 you open your mouth to scream because you have just watched the most bullshittiest aviation video ever released.
It is impossible to convince a VFR pilot of how unnerving it is to go from VFR to zero vis instantly. No fuzzy view of the ground. No sense of movement. Just noise. Total sensory unfamiliarity in a familiar cockpit. Next time an instructor hands you a hood? Don't peek. Fly the instruments!
My conjecture on this crash and many others is not that the non-instrument rated can't fly on instruments, it's that he doesn't recognize when he MUST fly by instruments. Far too easy to be staring out into the nothingness until it's too late. In JFK's case, I'm sure he was fine as long as he had the lights of the coast in site. Descend and turn out towards the open ocean and ....
Try putting your hands in your lap and using rudder to keep the turn needle centered.
Which is why I like the technique defined and trained in the study...it relies on the inherent stability of the airplane rather than very perishable skills.
Yea. Not fun.
I wonder how much those numbers are skewed by the psychological effect that that video has on those pilots who wonder into the clouds and now think that they are going to die in 178 seconds. Self fulfilling prophesy?
Much like the reason pilots think NDB approaches are hard...because that’s what they’ve been told and how they’ve been trained, therefore they end up BEING hard.
Yep. I saw an article once where I guy tested what would happen if he simply kept the needle pointed straight while inbound rather than trying to hold a specific course. Sure, he spiraled a little due to the cross wind, but it was pretty much a non-issue.
i am doing IR training (slowly...but steadily ) and i agree to this. i have about 5 hr of actual as on today and its no where close to wearing a hood. the first time i entered the cloud i was glued to the instrument and yet i couldnt shred the feeling that i was banking left. its hard to ignore your trusted body that has kept you alive for ages and focus on just what you are interpreting.
i also found going in and out of clouds or flying between layers (false horizon) is most distracting. its beautiful outside and you have to tune everything out and keep focusing on the damn instruments.
Yeah, tell that to the many dead pilots (and their innocent passengers) where the NTSB has ruled "continued VFR flight into instrument conditions."
So do you think yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater helps, too?
Or maybe “The sky is falling!”
Not the same thing, as you are well aware. And consider the era from which the film originates; it's over the top, ain't nobody saying it's not, but as others have mentioned, if you suffer instantaneous loss of visual cues, you may not have long to live if you don't immediately recognize it, and go to instruments.
Is that like the envelope protection feature in the GFC500 and GFC700?
But the thrust of the video is a scare tactic. It has absolutely nothing to do with solving the problem.
And the video is new...it simply pulled a statistic out of context from the 1954 study.
Analysis of the NTSB data base by the AOPA.
I think instantaneous loss is not the main problem. It's the gradual reduction that gets you because you keep pushing a little farther... "I still kind of have a horizon. I can still see the ground (straight down)."
Not sure how to correlate that with data however.
Flying in IMC is a lot harder than VMC and results in fatalities - about the same number of fatalities as stall/spins.
But that doesn't change the fact that the 178 second "statistic" is bogus and it's a stupid alarmist video that seems more likely to do harm than good.
Regrettably, the accident database also contains examples of instrument rated pilots that were apparently unable to control the aircraft adequately, or without assistance from an autopilot. A recent accident in Bedford, MA is an example. It involved an aircraft piloted by an instrument rated pilot on a routine ILS approach that went horribly wrong, somehow winding up 900 feet low at the FAF and subsequently entering a climbing turn, stall and (likely) spin. That 3 hours of instrument training for the PPL may turn out to be of little use in a VFR into IMC situation without periodic practice. Ask your favorite instrument instructor about how well many of their new IFR students do initially with their scan and aircraft control under the hood.