N21480 VFR into IMC

[dbahn]

do you really think that a guy that was scud running for a hundred miles at 1000-1600ft to try and get to Sun'N'Fun is going to turn around when they hit some clouds ? Yeah, ADM, 1000,500, 2000 from clouds. 1600ft to avoid clouds, heading to the coast. Storm front coming. .

That's a failure of "class G airmanship", which is a real thing and is something I taught to a few select students. If you're going to do it at all you have to do it VERY correctly, which includes resorting to any one of your "outs", a principle one being to turn around and head back to the last VFR airport or the nearest VFR landing option, even if it's not an airport. If you want to further stack the odds in your favor, train to be proficient in sudden IMC and how to trust the instruments and declare an emergency and live to deal with the consequences. Wishful thinking is a poor strategy.

 

[texasclouds]

The thing I did to add a little realism was to vector them to final (to the runway, not expecting them to understand instrument approaches) Two goals. One was, of course, to be able to follow those instructions without losing control the other was to see how disorienting "breaking out" can be. My CFI instructor taught another one that caused problems - a descent and turn at the same time. Screwed a lot of student pilots up showing that their baby scan was not sustainable and was not intended to let them make bad decisions.

Oh yea, we did climbing and descending turns. Also, practiced the Direct-to Nearest feature on GPS while trying to fly.

If the plane had an autopilot, we would review that with the foggles on as well. It’s a great tool for opening your mind to the big picture, problem solve, etc.

 

[sarangan]

I would think a simulator would have very little value for this scenario. Ya gotta feel the plane. I’ve never heard of using a simulator for the PPL requirement.

EDIT: It’s been brought to my attention that simulated does not necessarily mean simulator. You can simulate in the plane with a hood.

I meant simulated instrument time in an airplane (ie view limiting device).
Regardless, the point is that IMC conditions often takes people by surprise even if they have spent a lot of time doing simulated instrument time in an airplanr, or on a ground simulator.

 

[Clip4]

The FAA needs to get away from teaching student pilots to fly like somebody with 40 hours of instrument instruction and who meets instrument recency requirements.

Ok, then basically you are promoting LS limitations for private pilots without the aircraft restrictions.

A. If CFIs are not stressing the limited hood time a private pilot receives is an emergency procedure the FAA should address that.
B. The FAA allows VFR night operations". The limited hood time is needed for safe VFR night operations.
C. The FAA allows special VFR in IFR equipped aircraft. Kinda silly to allow that if you have zero hood time.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ok, then basically you are promoting LS limitations for private pilots without the aircraft restrictions.

A. If CFIs are not stressing the limited hood time a private pilot receives is an emergency procedure the FAA should address that.
B. The FAA allows VFR night operations". The limited hood time is needed for safe VFR night operations.
C. The FAA allows special VFR in IFR equipped aircraft. Kinda silly to allow that if you have zero hood time.

I don’t know what LS. Limitations are, but if they’re represented by A, B, and C, they have nothing to do with what I’m promoting.

 

[dbahn]

C. The FAA allows special VFR in IFR equipped aircraft. Kinda silly to allow that if you have zero hood time.

Not really. All that SVFR does is allow the controller to approve operations to class G weather minimums in controlled airspace, which any pilot should be able to do regardless of hood time.

 

[geezer]

There are many here that complain about the BFR. The flying club I spent half a century in, had an ANNUAL flight review. The minimum requirements were printed on a check sheet, and some of us flew more than the minimum. Long before I had an instrument rating, hood time was a standard part of my annual.

Later, all those bits and pieces counted toward my required minimum Instrument training hours, and the much larger portion of my flying that was flown VFR to instrument standards resulted in passing the IR ride at the minimum number of logged hours.

I do not believe that ground based simulators are a match for actual flight with vision restriction, but several times, I have gone to a local simulator provider with those old 510 machines, and practice for half an hour to get comfortable the night before a flight that I knew would have a lot of IFR in it. Very helpful. I did not use an instructor, just flew with increasing turbulence dialed in, until I was satisfied with my scan and control response producing better than check ride performance.

By comparison, there were at least 2 pilots who did no hood time on their annuals, and did not even remember which way the little airplane in the turn coordinator tilted for a right turn. They would have been CFIT or simply out of control if they flew into unexpected instrument conditions. By contrast, I made nearly all my turns at standard rate, or half standard. That was just what I always did.

 

[Steamflyer]

An hour in actual during private pilot training would produce far more value than the 3 hours simulated.

Couldn't agree more. But six months later that pilot is going to be pretty close to never having flown wrt instruments. It's a terribly perishable skill.

 

[luvflyin]

I meant simulated instrument time in an airplane (ie view limiting device).
Regardless, the point is that IMC conditions often takes people by surprise even if they have spent a lot of time doing simulated instrument time in an airplanr, or on a ground simulator.

Gotcha. Actual vs simulated(hood) would be better.

 

[PaulS]

A vfr pilot who scud runs gives into getthereitis.

 

[Anthem]

A vfr pilot who scud runs gives into getthereitis.

and yet we have people who blame the PPL curriculum saying that the FAA should have mandated training that would prevent this (its called an instrument rating folks). . . I mean ADM, VFR rules, and a bunch of other things that this pilot didnt consider or care about and you blame the FAA ???? :confused. . lol

 

[A1Topgun]

Get Home -itis / Get there -itis. Will usually lead to bad decisions. He was on his annual trip to Fun-n-Sun.
Local Bangor, ME news:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1639168577537454080

 

[MauleSkinner]

and yet we have people who blame the PPL curriculum saying that the FAA should have mandated training that would prevent this (its called an instrument rating folks). . . I mean ADM, VFR rules, and a bunch of other things that this pilot didnt consider or care about and you blame the FAA ???? :confused. . lol

I understand that a lot of people feel the need to establish blame rather than try to solve part of a problem. I’m not one of them.

and if an instrument rating is the answer, why are there instrument-rated pilots who die from VFR into IMC?

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Yeah. I didn’t mean fly by feel. I meant while flying the instruments, feel how what you’re feeling can be dead wrong. Simulators can’t do that. If you’re going incorporate instrument into PPL training for the purpose of maybe being able to survive an unintentional flight into the goo someday, I think it’s vital that it be done in the plane. And the CFI sets up a vertigo inducing situation.

The fact you can’t feel anything I think is a plus for simple simulators, plus you can’t cheat by sensing your orientation from under the hood.
Also you can simulate failures with far more accuracy, think AI that slowly progresses due to a failing vacuum pump.
I’d like to see generic x-plane simulators be approved for currency purposes.

 

[luvflyin]

The fact you can’t feel anything I think is a plus for simple simulators, plus you can’t cheat by sensing your orientation from under the hood.
Also you can simulate failures with far more accuracy, think AI that slowly progresses due to a failing vacuum pump.
I’d like to see generic x-plane simulators be approved for currency purposes.

No doubt simulators are very valuable for things like that. I hired a CFI just for that purpose once. After reading about an accident where ‘recognition’ of instrument failure was likely a cause. It occurred to me that while I had spent many hours doing partial panel, I had no training in recognizing impeding failure and just which instrument it was that was failing. And valuable for navigation exercises. And especially valuable for the buttonology of the GPS world and the task management issues it creates. But what we’ve been talking about here is the ‘3 hours of training solely by references to instruments’ requirement for Private Pilots.

 

[PaulS]

I understand that a lot of people feel the need to establish blame rather than try to solve part of a problem. I’m not one of them.

and if an instrument rating is the answer, why are there instrument-rated pilots who die from VFR into IMC?

I don’t know, probably because they choose to scud run? Most likely not current.

 

[nauga]

The fact you can’t feel anything I think is a plus for simple simulators, plus you can’t cheat by sensing your orientation from under the hood.
Also you can simulate failures with far more accuracy, think AI that slowly progresses due to a failing vacuum pump.
I’d like to see generic x-plane simulators be approved for currency purposes.

Fixed base* simulators can make excellent procedures trainers but it's impossible to replicate the severity and insidious nature of vertigo in one.

*Motion is not necessarily any better, bad motion can be worse

Nauga,
motion carried

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don’t know, probably because they choose to scud run? Most likely not current.

So how would an instrument rating help, per @Anthem ’s post?

 

[Troska]

I don’t know what LS. Limitations are, but if they’re represented by A, B, and C, they have nothing to do with what I’m promoting.

I’ve read through the thread and I don’t see it - what are you promoting that should be taught?

Tim

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’ve read through the thread and I don’t see it - what are you promoting that should be taught?

Tim

Something resembling the solution that AOPA used to teach as determined by the study that the Illinois aviation program did back in the 1950s. Take your hands off the controls, set a predetermined aircraft configuration and power, let the stability of the airplane do the hard work, and the pilot just provides a little guidance with his feet.

Low tech, most airplanes are equipped for it, and it doesn’t rely on perishable skills, which were goals of the study.

 

[PaulS]

So how would an instrument rating help, per @Anthem ’s post?

A current and proficient pilot will most likely file. It’s what I do if there is a doubt now. If the proficient instrument pilot gets caught, most likely they will just settle things down on instruments, fess up and get a clearance. No big deal.

I’ve met pilots who have stories about getting caught in clouds. I tell them to quit f’ing around and get an instrument rating. Not sure they’ve done it yet. In my opinion if you fly on overnight trips long distances more than once a year, you should get an instrument rating. Too many pressures come into play using an airplane like that vfr.

 

[MauleSkinner]

A current and proficient pilot will most likely file. It’s what I do if there is a doubt now. If the proficient instrument pilot gets caught, most likely they will just settle things down on instruments, fess up and get a clearance. No big deal.

I’ve met pilots who have stories about getting caught in clouds. I tell them to quit f’ing around and get an instrument rating. Not sure they’ve done it yet. In my opinion if you fly on overnight trips long distances more than once a year, you should get an instrument rating. Too many pressures come into play using an airplane like that vfr.

I’ve been instrument rated, current and proficient for the last 30+ years, with training and checkrides 2-3 times a year.

I have had numerous occasions where filing IFR was not an option, but VFR was perfectly safe. As @dbahn noted, however, that still requires training and proficiency in VFR flight. Unfortunately most pilots think VFR flying requires less training and proficiency than IFR flight, so VFR is viewed as the unsafe thing that most pilots seem to assume it is.

 

[PaulS]

I’ve been instrument rated, current and proficient for the last 30+ years, with training and checkrides 2-3 times a year.

I have had numerous occasions where filing IFR was not an option, but VFR was perfectly safe. As @dbahn noted, however, that still requires training and proficiency in VFR flight. Unfortunately most pilots think VFR flying requires less training and proficiency than IFR flight, so VFR is viewed as the unsafe thing that most pilots seem to assume it is.

I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. I fly vfr all the time, it’s not less safe unless conditions are bad. What’s less safe is a vfr pilot scud running, anyone who rejects that is in denial.

I think a key point is the ifr rating requires a lot more training than a vfr pilot gets and it’s critical for flying in clouds.

 

[Anthem]

So how would an instrument rating help, per @Anthem ’s post?

an instrument "rating" doesnt necessarily help. Being a proficient instrument pilot would absolutely have. Current is sometimes equated as proficient - and thats not necessarily the case, but someone who is current, you would figure would have the skills to be proficient. But absolutely, if they were instrument proficient, going in to clouds - assuming the clouds were not cumulonimbus, mature or early dissipating - wouldnt be an issue for that person at all. However, it also wouldnt be legal unless they filed and were on an IFR flight plan. Just because you are instrument rated - doesnt allow you to fly in to the clouds without being on an instrument flight plan.

I think a key point is the ifr rating requires a lot more training than a vfr pilot gets and it’s critical for flying in clouds.

and I would go further and just say any time any spatial disorientation is a possiblity. Because night flying without a lot of moonlight, or night flying over water - while legal via VFR, can easily lead to spatial disorientation that leads to trouble.

and I will point out for IFR ratings - being proficient flying in instrument conditions is the fastest perishing skill ever. . . if you have it and dont use it often, it goes quick.

 

[sarangan]

Couldn't agree more. But six months later that pilot is going to be pretty close to never having flown wrt instruments. It's a terribly perishable skill.

Agreed.
But being engulfed by the white stuff during one's first time in IMC, and not being able to peek through the edges to catch glimpes of the ground or the horizon does make a lasting impression.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. I fly vfr all the time, it’s not less safe unless conditions are bad. What’s less safe is a vfr pilot scud running, anyone who rejects that is in denial.

I think a key point is the ifr rating requires a lot more training than a vfr pilot gets and it’s critical for flying in clouds.

Yes, scud running is less safe, but “Scud running” is an ill-defined term that means very different things to different people. Part of that difference is training and experience, which is just as critical for VFR as it is for flying in the clouds.

 

[MauleSkinner]

an instrument "rating" doesnt necessarily help. Being a proficient instrument pilot would absolutely have. Current is sometimes equated as proficient - and thats not necessarily the case, but someone who is current, you would figure would have the skills to be proficient. But absolutely, if they were instrument proficient, going in to clouds - assuming the clouds were not cumulonimbus, mature or early dissipating - wouldnt be an issue for that person at all.

So your earlier statement was incomplete, if not misleading.

 

[Anthem]

Yes, scud running is less safe, but “Scud running” is an ill-defined term that means very different things to different people. Part of that difference is training and experience, which is just as critical for VFR as it is for flying in the clouds.

You are right - scud running is ambiguous and ill defined. So lets just say the pilot violated 14 CFR Section 61.89 for VFR cloud clearances which is not ambiguous.

I clarified what I would consider instrument proficient vs just an instrument rating. An instrument rating that isnt current means you cant exercise the privileges of using/filing instrument flight plans. Just like a private pilot that hasnt done a BFR (or the various other options to be considered current). So yes, when I say instrument rating - then the implication is that someone is current. Just like when you say private pilot, you are implying that they are current.

 

[Llewtrah381]

The FAA can mandate all kinds of requirements. However, we as pilots bare a lot of the responsibility for these accidents.

Yup. There’s tons of education and messaging about smoking yet people still smoke. “Education” is not the same as - nor does it guarantee - “behavior”

 

[Troska]

Something resembling the solution that AOPA used to teach as determined by the study that the Illinois aviation program did back in the 1950s. Take your hands off the controls, set a predetermined aircraft configuration and power, let the stability of the airplane do the hard work, and the pilot just provides a little guidance with his feet.

Low tech, most airplanes are equipped for it, and it doesn’t rely on perishable skills, which were goals of the study.

I can understand that. I can also understand the desire to return the pilot to VFR conditions ASAP.

I’m your scenario, what is the end game? How do you return a VFR pilot to safety?

Im not trying to be argumentative, I’m trying to understand why one practice is going to have a better rate of successful outcome than another.

Tim

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’m your scenario, what is the end game? How do you return a VFR pilot to safety?

The Pilot would be returned to VFR conditions the same way he would be now…it’s just that the likelihood of surviving long enough to get that help would be higher.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So lets just say the pilot violated 14 CFR Section 61.89 for VFR cloud clearances which is not ambiguous.

True. So as long as the pilot doesn’t violate those cloud clearances (or visibility requirements), you’d be satisfied he is exercising due diligence?

I’ll bet (and I hope) not.

 

[Anthem]

True. So as long as the pilot doesn’t violate those cloud clearances (or visibility requirements), you’d be satisfied he is exercising due diligence?

I’ll bet (and I hope) not.

No. As most others are judgement calls and each of us have their own judgements. And you can only quote the actual fars that aren’t related to judgement calls for this group not to have an aneurysm over. But my original point was that I disagree that you blame this on the faa.

 

[MauleSkinner]

No. As most others are judgement calls and each of us have their own judgements. And you can only quote the actual fars that aren’t related to judgement calls for this group not to have an aneurysm over. But my original point was that I disagree that you blame this on the faa.

And my point that I’ve tried to state is that I’m not blaming the FAA.

 

[dbahn]

Yes, scud running is less safe, but “Scud running” is an ill-defined term that means very different things to different people. Part of that difference is training and experience, which is just as critical for VFR as it is for flying in the clouds.

That's why I use "class G airmanship" instead of scud running. Class G airspace and weather is clearly defined, and if you're going to operate there in any kind of marginal conditions you need to know exactly how to do it safely.

 

[flyingron]

Not really. All that SVFR does is allow the controller to approve operations to class G weather minimums in controlled airspace, which any pilot should be able to do regardless of hood time.

But most can't. If you've seen what a mile and clear of clouds actually look like and you can maintain that given what got you into that situation to begin with. A mile visibility means you can't see the far end of most runways.

 

[Daleandee]

That's why I use "class G airmanship" instead of scud running. Class G airspace and weather is clearly defined, and if you're going to operate there in any kind of marginal conditions you need to know exactly how to do it safely.

I like Mike but he, like all of us, sometimes does things that makes others shake their head while holding their breath:

 

[asicer]

But most can't. If you've seen what a mile and clear of clouds actually look like and you can maintain that given what got you into that situation to begin with. A mile visibility means you can't see the far end of most runways.

Wouldn't that ability be somewhat inversely proportional to your airspeed? Trying to do it at 60ktas seems a lot easier than 160ktas

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Something resembling the solution that AOPA used to teach as determined by the study that the Illinois aviation program did back in the 1950s. Take your hands off the controls, set a predetermined aircraft configuration and power, let the stability of the airplane do the hard work, and the pilot just provides a little guidance with his feet.

Low tech, most airplanes are equipped for it, and it doesn’t rely on perishable skills, which were goals of the study.

It is spelled out in several Pilot Operating Handbooks. A pilot who is not trained in instrument flying should take hands off the yoke and reduce power, keeping wings level with the rudder pedals. This works, and I include it in the simulated instrument training for my primary students.

 

[texasclouds]

It is spelled out in several Pilot Operating Handbooks. A pilot who is not trained in instrument flying should take hands off the yoke and reduce power, keeping wings level with the rudder pedals. This works, and I include it in the simulated instrument training for my primary students.

With an inherently stable airframe like a Skyhawk, you pretty much have to force it to get into an unusual attitude. You have to try hard to get it to spin, and even then it doesn’t want to stay there.

ABC, always be cool