How long can you keep it up?

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
15,620
Location
DXO124009
Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
178 seconds. Really?

OK, sorry, but I'm starting out with a bit of a rant. Not your fault. But the IT people here just sent me an email telling me to click on a link in the mail and supply my credentials sot that they can improve the security... Again. Seriously? Last time, it went all the way up to the Provost. You think they would have caught on. And, I would have ignored the video below, but as long as I am on a roll...

This is a beyond stupid, beyond annoying video - you don't have to watch to get the gist - it's this countdown to when you are going to die - heartbeat in the background getting faster and faster, camera jerking around, you have 30 seconds to live, the world is spinning around and around.... Gag me with a spoon.

So the stupid 178 number came from a study in the '50s where they took some pilots with exactly zero (as in none, ever) experience flying on instruments. (Not even once.) Stuck them in a Bo. Covered up the AI, DG, and rate of climb, and said "your airplane". And, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots. But 178 seconds?

Note: From the 26th Nall report - 20 fatal VFR into IFR in 2014 (this includes CFIT) plus 4 "poor IFR technique". Yes, this **** can kill you. And, personally, if it looks "safer" to go over the top (and hope that you find VMC on the other side) than to go under, I think the sensible thing is to not go at all. But 178 seconds?

So, I'm not saying that it's a good thing for a day VFR pilot such as myself to go charging into a cloud (or over an overcast) - but assuming it happens, if you are a VFR pilot, how long could you keep it up? Do first time under the hood students typically lose control? How long do they last? What about the first IFR lesson?

I know that when I was under the hood (over hazy lake Erie - so no good way to cheat even if I wanted) for the first time in about 30 years, it wasn't a big deal. Now, I know that an actual stuff hitting the fan is not like training with a CFI in the other seat, but the one time in my life that I found my sorry ass inside a real cloud (stupid, stupid, stupid), while it was a real big deal, I was able to extricate myself without any real drama or struggle for control (but it took less than 178 seconds). (You IFR guys need not worry, I was well below the altitudes for the instrument approach into the nearest airport.)

How long?
 
I find it interesting that you're condemning the whole seminar based on the first three minutes, before they even start to talk about the topic.

I know a handful of people who are alive today because they stayed for the whole seminar.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I find it interesting that you're condemning the whole seminar based on the first three minutes, before they even start to talk about the topic.
Click to expand...
If you lose your audience at the beginning your message is also lost, no matter how good it is.

It's also not really true, since I know a VFR pilot who survived a substantial amount of time in IMC. I believe they said is was about 30 minutes.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I find it interesting that you're condemning the whole seminar based on the first three minutes, before they even start to talk about the topic.

I know a handful of people who are alive today because they stayed for the whole seminar.
Click to expand...
What seminar?
"You have ten seconds to live, you see trees rushing up at you ... you open your mouth to scream" End of video.
 
Everskyward said:
If you lose your audience at the beginning your message is also lost, no matter how good it is.
Click to expand...
While I agree, I didn't write the seminar.
It's also not really true, since I know a VFR pilot who survived a substantial amount of time in IMC. I believe they said is was about 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
What's not true? That a pilot with no instrument training or experience won't last long in the clouds?
 
I've never been a fan of that video. Personally I've never found it difficult to control an airplane on instruments alone, assuming all the instruments were working and I didn't have to multitask, as in communicate with ATC, brief an approach plate, run through a checklist, etc. Being comfortable enough to do all those things at the same time took a fair amount of training and still takes recurrent practice. But keeping the shiny side up never caused me any difficulties, even when I was a primary student in the clouds with my CFI, and a few months later flying on a hazy summer day crossing Lake Michigan, then at twilight over northern Michigan with the ground barely visible due to haze.

I still think, though, that the experience of having no visual reference can be disconcerting to VFR-only pilots and everyone should have recurrent training under the hood, even if they have no interest in going for the instrument rating. It's hard to anticipate all of the situations where you might someday need it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
What's not true? That a pilot with no instrument training or experience won't last long in the clouds?
Click to expand...
What's true is that you can last substantially longer than 178 seconds. Of course they use that number in their attempt to keep VFR pilots from flying into IMC, but it's not sure death if you exceed that time.
 
Everskyward said:
What's true is that you can last substantially longer than 178 seconds. Of course they use that number in their attempt to keep VFR pilots from flying into IMC, but it's not sure death if you exceed that time.
Click to expand...
You're correct...but since the premise of the video isn't that "you" won't last more than 178 seconds in the clouds, it's kind of irrelevant.

In fact, if you read the study, you'll find Hat 178 seconds was merely the average for the group tested under the conditions tested. That group and the conditions were chosen to demonstrate that the solution was viable, not to assume any kind of "average" life expectancy.
 
In my experience none of my Student Pilots have ever had difficulty flying by instruments only, in training though. Now if they ever got into a situation who knows what would happen. I did have one SP who flew into the clouds on a solo XC, but she didn't panic and did what she was taught, a 180* turn back to VMC. Getting into a dire situation without an instrument rating I can see where one could "lose" it within a short period of time as well as calmly fly for an extended period (no idea how long) and escape from IMC into VMC.
 
I think the video might have a negative impact on VFR pilots who have viewed it. If you think you're going to crash and die it's probably harder to stay calm and work through the problem.

For me, the presentation, at least the introduction, is something worthy of a tabloid TV show.
 
MauleSkinner said:
While I agree, I didn't write the seminar.

What's not true? That a pilot with no instrument training or experience won't last long in the clouds?
Click to expand...
If you mean "no more instrument training than the required 3 hours" rather than strictly none, it's definitely not true. I would have lasted indefinitely under most circumstances (significant turbulence excepted), and there are no doubt plenty of VFR pilots who could do equally well. Many VFR pilots survive encounters with IMC. It's definitely not sure death.
 
Everskyward said:
I think the video might have a negative impact on VFR pilots who have viewed it. If you think you're going to crash and die it's probably harder to stay calm and work through the problem.

For me, the presentation, at least the introduction, is something worthy of a tabloid TV show.
Click to expand...
Strongly agreed, and that was my reaction the first time I saw it. The last thing we should be doing is inducing panic.
 
azure said:
If you mean "no more instrument training than the required 3 hours" rather than strictly none, it's definitely not true. I would have lasted indefinitely under most circumstances (significant turbulence excepted), and there are no doubt plenty of VFR pilots who could do equally well. Many VFR pilots survive encounters with IMC. It's definitely not sure death.
Click to expand...
No, I mean "no instrument training or experience "... the level of the pilots in the study.

So you've flown a Bonanza with just needle, ball, and airspeed enough to know you'd have lasted indefinitely?
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
No, I mean "no instrument training or experience "... the level of the pilots in the study.
Click to expand...
I didn't think anyone was seriously considering the conditions of that study as a reasonable model for the average VFR pilot. I think it's clear that under the worst possible conditions, most completely IMC-naive pilots (i.e., student pilots with zero hood time, in an unfamiliar plane) would probably not last long. My objection is to extrapolating from that study to the average VFR-only pilot in a plane they are familiar with, finding themselves in IMC. That is what that video is implying, and IMO, it is quite untrue and a dangerous message to send, for the reason Mari posted.
 
azure said:
I didn't think anyone was seriously considering the conditions of that study as a reasonable model for the average VFR pilot. I think it's clear that under the worst possible conditions, most completely IMC-naive pilots (i.e., student pilots with zero hood time, in an unfamiliar plane) would probably not last long. My objection is to extrapolating from that study to the average VFR-only pilot in a plane they are familiar with, finding themselves in IMC. That is what that video is implying, and IMO, it is quite untrue and a dangerous message to send, for the reason Mari posted.
Click to expand...
What the video was implying in 1957 is entirely different than what it implies today. Even 30 years ago it was being out of context, and was therefore irrelevant. The fact that people seem to be assuming it is relevant today, even if it were to be used in context (which it's obviously not, since the OP was unaware of the other 95% of the seminar in which it was used) is just as bad, if not worse, than the video itself.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The fact that people seem to be assuming it is relevant today,
Click to expand...
If it's not relevant, why would it be part of a seminar? Obviously whoever wrote the seminar thought it was relevant.The video made it pretty clear that you are going to die if you fly into hard IMC and said nothing about the context for the 178 number (it even showed the DG, horizon, and VSI that were covered for the original study).

"The sky is overcast, the visibility poor, the 5 mile forecast looks more like 2..."
What do they teach in the rest of the Seminar? When to call it quits? Keeping the shiny side up while you get vectors? "You can do this! No need to panic!"? Scud running with safety?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
If it's not relevant, why would it be part of a seminar? Obviously whoever wrote the seminar thought it was relevant.The video made it pretty clear that you are going to die if you fly into hard IMC and said nothing about the context for the 178 number (it even showed the DG, horizon, and VSI that were covered for the original study).

"The sky is overcast, the visibility poor, the 5 mile forecast looks more like 2..."
What do they teach in the rest of the Seminar? When to call it quits? Keeping the shiny side up while you get vectors? "You can do this! No need to panic!"? Scud running with safety?
Click to expand...
Key word "today". The seminar was written 60 years ago. What they taught in the rest of the seminar was the technique in the study you posted in the other thread, along with the video I posted in that same thread.

The fact that they used sensationalism to try to get people's attention seems bad to me, too, but I don't recall being asked to participate in writing the seminar.

But then, John Wayne ***** slapping the captain was considered good CRM back then, too.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
178 seconds. Really?

...

How long?
Click to expand...
If it was 178 seconds, wife would kill me. Or upgrade. ;)

But all seriousness aside, I logged .8 IMC last weekend, all hand flown (for fun, even though George had a green light and was ready to jump in at a moment's notice) and kept the oily side down.
Is that more than 178 seconds?

I get your rant and I agree with the wide-spread sentiment about the drama-queen presentation format in the video.
But we gotta realize that we are very different folks with different strokes. Some of us are smart enough to be able to absorb pure facts and form our own image and conclusions (and learn a lesson or two). Some are not that smart so they need tabloid-style crying, screaming, shaking, noise-making, heart-beating to get the message across. And hopefully it helps them get the message across to most pilots.
Lots of the ASI videos are just hyped-up NTSB crash reports, some are better, some not, it is hit-n-miss.
I take away the key facts from the video/presentation and move on. I stopped worrying about the format a while ago when I realized that most of us pilots are smarter than 80% of the population.

Air Crash Investigation (I hope I got the title right) is a prime example of lots of drama made out of not many facts. It takes them an hour to provide 10 minutes of factual information. You get the picture.

If anybody knows of a good channel or source for pure fact-based plane crash investigations, I would appreciate a link. I like to learn from these. (and please don't be a smartazz and post a link to the NTSB webpage :p )
 
The video’s comparison of that scenario to the 178 second study is ridiculous. Two different things. Partial panel, no sim IFR time and performing a series of tasks vs a full IFR panel, sim IFR time and no distracting tasks. Not to mention most of the subjects in the study weren’t familiar with the Bo.

Can most VFR pilots in an instrument equipped plane that they’re familiar with, enter actual instrument conditions and survive? Of course but with a caveat of just because they flew under foggles for a few minutes in training, doesn’t mean they won’t suffer from the effects of spatial D in actual and crash. After a couple of hours of cookie cutter instrument training I thought I was the man. This is until my instructor got me completely disoriented one day while flying in actual on an IAP. Forget 178 secs, I was FUBAR in less than a second.
 
I found this vid on the web when I was a student.


Scared the crap out of me. I did no further research and thought 178 seconds was an average for VFR pilots. Call me dumb, but I figure I’m of average intelligence, so it would get the same reaction from half the population.

Would I panic if I got into IMC? Probably not, but I’m sure I would not be calm. I was conditioned to treat it like an emergency. No different than an engine out or fire.
 
Last edited:
Actually, as I look at this video, it's not from the original seminar. Apparently somebody at ASF decided intentionally to create something out of context.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Would I panic if I got into IMC? Probably not, but I’m sure I would not be calm. I was conditioned to treat it like an emergency. No different than an engine out or fire.
Click to expand...

In my case, attempting a 180 with NO gyros seems like a really bad idea. On the other hand, carefully not moving the stick at all (airplane was flying wings level before I went into the grey stuff (Like the guy in the video - got head down and distracted)), easing back on the power (I knew I had several hundred feet of clear below me - just like the guy in the video you linked) and simply waiting got my ass out of it.
 
Know how to do "Needle ball and airspeed" you'll have no worries.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So the stupid 178 number came from a study in the '50s where they took some pilots with exactly zero (as in none, ever) experience flying on instruments. (Not even once.) Stuck them in a Bo. Covered up the AI, DG, and rate of climb, and said "your airplane". And, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots. But 178 seconds
Click to expand...

Yes, 178 seconds was the average time that a pilot was able to fly blind without instruments. But what they didn't tell you is that this group was the control group...pilots with zero training, zero instruments and zero visibility. Even an IFR trained pilot is likely to crash in that situation.

In fact, the study was actually to test whether or not a VFR pilot could be trained to use instruments to make a 180 turn. After "crashing", they taught each pilot the techniques to execute a 180 with reference to instruments and tested them again - every single pilot was able to learn to reverse course and get out of the clouds again.

Then someone came up with a scare video based on the control group and how clouds were a deathtrap waiting to snare VFR pilots and lure them to their doom. Now, that is all anyone know of the study and the real lesson has been lost to the drama. Sigh....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top