Tragic VFR flight into IMC

[ScottM]

Tagic
Note the date of his PPL certificate at the end of the overview.

NTSB Identification: NYC06FA215
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, September 04, 2006 in Penhook, VA
Aircraft: Cessna 150G, registration: N2932J
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On September 4, 2006, at 1132 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 150G, N2932J, was destroyed when it impacted trees and terrain following an inflight breakup near Penhook, Virginia. The certificated private pilot and passenger were fatally injured. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the flight, which departed Smith Mountain Lake Airport (W91), Monetna, Virginia, about 1120, destined for Florence Regional Airport (FLO), Florence, South Carolina. The personal flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to preliminary air traffic control (ATC) communication and radar data obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the pilot contacted Roanoke approach control about 1120, and requested visual flight rules (VFR) flight following services. Shortly thereafter, the airplane was radar identified about 2 nautical miles south of Smith Mountain Lake Airport.

The airplane tracked generally southbound, until about 1130, when the pilot asked the controller for a radar vector. When queried about the request, the pilot responded, "we're kinda lost in some fog here." The controller then asked the pilot to state his present heading, to which the pilot replied, "I can't tell, I think we're upside-down." The controller instructed the pilot to turn right, and 18 seconds later advised the pilot to stop his turn. During this time the airplane had completed a left turn to a northeasterly track, and its altitude varied between 4,500 and 4,700 feet. About 10 seconds later, at 1132, the pilot stated, "we can't see, we can't see, we can't see," and ten seconds later transmitted something unintelligible. The controller advised the pilot to stay calm, that he was at an altitude of 4,500 feet, and that he should not climb or descend the airplane. No further transmissions were received from the pilot, and radar contact was lost shortly thereafter.

A witness, located near the accident site, reported that he heard "a loud pop." When he looked up, he saw the airplane descend into the woods, and then saw the wings of the airplane "floating" down to the ground.

Another witness described that she heard the airplane, and that it sounded like "it was landing in the back yard." She stepped outside and saw the wings of the airplane "twirling in the air," before they impacted the ground, but did not see the rest of the airplane.

The accident occurred during the hours of daylight at 36 degrees 56 minutes north latitude, 74 degrees 36 minutes west longitude.

All major components of the airplane were accounted for at the scene, except for a portion of the right side doorpost, which was not recovered. The wreckage path was oriented on a heading about 080 degrees magnetic, and was about 3,500 feet long. The wings had separated from the fuselage, and were found along the wreckage path, along with numerous other small pieces from the airplane. The left and right wings separated near the wing root, and a portion of the cabin roof and both the fore and aft carry-through spars remained attached to the left wing. Examination of both wings revealed signatures consistent with an in-flight separation in the positive, or upward, direction. All of the fracture surfaces examined on both wings, and their respective wing struts, were consistent with overload.

Flight control continuity was confirmed to all control surfaces. The horizontal stabilizer, elevator, and trim tab were bent upward about 45 degrees near their mid-span. Measurement of the flap actuator revealed an indication consistent with the flaps being in the up position, and the elevator trim tab was in the 10-degree tab up position.

Fuel similar in color to automotive fuel was found in both wing fuel tanks, and in the carburetor. The fuel selector handle was found in the on position. The engine crankshaft was rotated by hand at the propeller, which remained attached, and valvetrain continuity was confirmed. Compression was obtained on all cylinders, except for cylinder number 3, which was dislodged from the crankcase. The impact damaged magneto leads were cut from the magnetos, and rotation of both magnetos produced spark on all towers. The spark plugs exhibited normal wear, and their electrodes were black in color.

The weather conditions reported at Roanoke Regional Airport (ROA), about 26 nautical miles northwest of the accident site, at 1154, included winds from 150 degrees at 6 knots, 3 statute miles visibility in light rain and mist, scattered clouds at 500 feet, an overcast ceiling at 700 feet, temperature 63 degrees Fahrenheit, dewpoint 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting of 30.20 inches of mercury.

The weather conditions reported at Lynchburg Regional Airport (LYH), about 30 nautical miles northeast of the accident site, at 1126, included variable winds at 3 knots, 2 statute miles visibility in heavy rain and mist, few clouds at 1,100 feet, an overcast ceiling at 2,600 feet, temperature 63 degrees Fahrenheit, dewpoint 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting of 30.19 inches of mercury.

An AIRMET for IFR conditions was issued about 1 1/2 hours before the accident airplane departed. It warned of occasional ceilings below 1,000 feet, and visibilities below 3 statute miles due to clouds, precipitation, mist, and fog, with the conditions ending between 1100 and 1400. An AIRMET for mountain obscuration was also issued at the same time that warned of similar conditions continuing beyond 1600 through 2200.

A preliminary review of flight service station data revealed that the pilot did not contact any flight service stations or the Direct User Access Terminal System (DUATS) to obtain a weather briefing, or file a flight plan, prior to the accident flight.

The pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single engine land, which was issued on June 17, 2006. His most recent FAA third class medical certificate was issued on February 16, 2006. He did not hold an instrument rating

The ink was barely dring on his temporary certificate and he is launching off into IMC. Wow!! I have a suspisicion that some DE and CFIs will also have explaining to do as to why this pilot's decision making ability was so wrong. Not that I am saying they are responsible but I wonder if they observed any behavior that would have given a hint that the pilot was not the best decision maker.

 

[GMascelli]

Wow.....

A terrible loss of life and to take that risk not only for the pilot but with a pax to boot.....very sad.

I wonder sometimes what drives people to do those type of things. I have only had my ticket since 7/17 and unless it's pattern work I call wx brief. If it's borderline it's a no brainer no go for me. I read that report and can't help but shake my head and wonder what he/she was thinking to roll the dice on that one. I feel bad for the families involved....I can't even begin to imagine.

 

[AdamZ]

Wow what a tradgedy. What the heck must he have been thinking. That poor pax. I am curious as to how the FAA can whack the CFI and DE ( I know they can because they are the FAA) I mean this PP could have gotten good scores on his test done well on the practical and not set off any clue that he would do something so STUPID.

 

[Greebo]

So, and I know this is armchair quarterbacking, reading between the lines, he took off into reported IMC with a 3 month old PPL, got into the soup, failed to follow instrument procedures taught and tested for the PPL, and then presumably experienced spatial disorientation ("I think we're upside down") and overstressed the plane, and pulled the wings off.

Good gods above - it just makes you shake your head in disbelief. No briefing? No weather info? Low clouds on the east coast? Geez...

 

[EHITCH]

I sincerely think 60 minutes of flight in ACTUAL IMC should be required of all student pilots. Foggles/hoods do NOT simulate actual IMC conditions. The hour I spent in the clouds (with my CFI) was some of the most valuable training I received. I was POSITIVE I would never have the leans or any spatial disorientation, but the minute we lost the horizon my left wing started to dip. That hour of training made an indelible impression. If the FAA won't require it, CFIs should make every effort to figure out how to make it happen for their students. It might help keep a few folks safely on the ground.
Elizabeth

 

[Witmo]

I'm just curious about the "flight control continuity was confirmed to all control surfaces" statement. If the wings had separated from the fuselage, how can there be continuity to the ailerons?

 

[SkyHog]

I sincerely think 60 minutes of flight in ACTUAL IMC should be required of all student pilots. Foggles/hoods do NOT simulate actual IMC conditions. The hour I spent in the clouds (with my CFI) was some of the most valuable training I received. I was POSITIVE I would never have the leans or any spatial disorientation, but the minute we lost the horizon my left wing started to dip. That hour of training made an indelible impression. If the FAA won't require it, CFIs should make every effort to figure out how to make it happen for their students. It might help keep a few folks safely on the ground.
Elizabeth

You honestly believe that this should be required? How about, instead, we require 10 hours of IMC avoidance? I think tacking 60 hours onto the PPL requirements is quite excessive.

 

[Lawreston]

I remember departing Auburn-Lewiston, Maine for Sanford, Maine(w/ flight-following). It was a gorgeous day but sometime after checking in w/ Portland(Class C) Approach I was into some unanticipated haze. I reported back to Portland and was instructed to "Maintain course and climb 4-5-0-0." That was 2000' above my reporting point. "Up there" it wasn't much different, and it was my first solo experience with no horizon; and not fun.

"Portland Approach, 7872Golf student pilot still in serious haze. Suggest cancel Sanford destination. Vectors back to Auburn-Lewiston, please."
He vectored me with, "Advise when Auburn-Lewiston in sight," and kept checking back while I was on the way home. I can look back and say I enjoyed the occasion because it was a serious learning experience, but during the event it was not a mental joy ride. Instruments are godly.

HR

 

[tonycondon]

60 minutes nick, 1 hour. would be part of the 3 hours instrument requirement. Im all for it, and like to take my private students up in clouds when they are around. the problem with actual instrument requirements is that the brunt of the flight training done by big schools is done in areas with practically no IMC throughout the year.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I have only had my ticket since 7/17 and unless it's pattern work I call wx brief.

Gary,

Call 'em even if you're only going up in the pattern. You never know when a TFR is going to pop up, or whether there's some NOTAM that might affect you. You don't necessarily have to get a full briefing, but check those TFR's and NOTAM's at least.

 

[GMascelli]

Gary,

Call 'em even if you're only going up in the pattern. You never know when a TFR is going to pop up, or whether there's some NOTAM that might affect you. You don't necessarily have to get a full briefing, but check those TFR's and NOTAM's at least.

I always check the FAA TFR page http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/index.html and AOPA flight plan for TFR updates, even for pattern work. NOTAMs are "usually" posted......so YES I best make that call and have no doubts for myself and not depend on others to post........thanks!

 

[AdamZ]

I sincerely think 60 minutes of flight in ACTUAL IMC should be required of all student pilots. Foggles/hoods do NOT simulate actual IMC conditions. The hour I spent in the clouds (with my CFI) was some of the most valuable training I received. I was POSITIVE I would never have the leans or any spatial disorientation, but the minute we lost the horizon my left wing started to dip. That hour of training made an indelible impression. If the FAA won't require it, CFIs should make every effort to figure out how to make it happen for their students. It might help keep a few folks safely on the ground.
Elizabeth

.

I agree if it possible Elizabeth, Not sure how easy that would be in places like Phoenix but Actual IMC is NOTHING like being under the hood. I have my IR but was always anxious about flying in actual. I have now done it twice w/o my CFI. I really would have liked more during training.

Nick 10hrs for IMC avoidance? Yea lean the weather ya learn IMC avoidance plan and simple. Tell me what more you could have taught this guy about IMC avoidance. If you are a VFR PPL Don't take off into driving rain and 500' ceilings ? I mean come on this was worse than the JFK situation or flying in to bad Haze. I have seen Haze in VMC that really is a defacto IMC. That would be a good lesson but taking off into what this guy did , Well he had to have had one of the dangerous attidtudes IMHO.

 

[poadeleted20]

The 1 hour of actual is a nice suggestion, and worthy of consideration by CFI's. In fact, many folks have in the past suggested requiring some amount of actual as part of the 40 hours of instrument time for the IR. Unfortunately, there are places in this country where folks could go for years without ever getting any actual IMC time because the only time it's IMC, it isn't safe to fly. In addition, many CFI's giving primary instruction don't have the IA on their CFI ticket, and requiring them to give flight training in IMC would be inappropriate, even though it is legal. Thus, it would not be practical to implement it as a regulatory requirement at either level.

 

[gismo]

So, and I know this is armchair quarterbacking, reading between the lines, he took off into reported IMC with a 3 month old PPL, got into the soup, failed to follow instrument procedures taught and tested for the PPL, and then presumably experienced spatial disorientation ("I think we're upside down") and overstressed the plane, and pulled the wings off.

Good gods above - it just makes you shake your head in disbelief. No briefing? No weather info? Low clouds on the east coast? Geez...

I think it's likely that this pilot simply failed to recognize how lousy the wx was until he got airborne and by then he was in over his head. Without significant training and practice it's difficult to accurately estimate both visibility and ceiling when the wx is marginal. According to my flight planner there's no AWOS/ASOS at W91 so the pilot would have been on his own as far as the local wx goes. Start with his probable limited experience at judging wx (chances are the CFI made most of the wx decisions till then), add a little optimism ("it's probably not as bad as it looks, and I think it looks better in the direction we will be heading"), and you've got a good recipie for a "lets get in the air and take a look" line of thought. Prior to actual exposure to MVFR turning to IFR many pilots tend to relate to their driving experience and from that perspective the weather might not have seemed all that bad. And as to no record of any pre-flight briefing, that's not a guarantee that the pilot didn't in fact check the weather reports. Obviously if he had checked official sources, you'd think the mention of an IFR AIRMET would have gotten his attention but even that was just part of a wide area forecast and he could have (correctly in other cases) expected that the wx over his route might not be as bad as the worst of the forecast which apparently only indicated the "possibility" of IMC.

Now I'm not saying the decision to launch was valid or acceptable (it obviously wasn't in hindsight), just that if you look at it from certain perspectives, it's somewhat understandable. More often than not marginal conditions look far better from the ground than from the air and coupled with a lack of reliable local wx (forecast and observation) I think it's easy to see how an inexperienced pilot might find conditions to appear acceptable where a more seasoned pilot would automatically rule it no-go.

I do wonder how well this is addressed in primary training. I assume the answer is all over the map, from grossly inadequate to well covered.

 

[gismo]

The 1 hour of actual is a nice suggestion, and worthy of consideration by CFI's. In fact, many folks have in the past suggested requiring some amount of actual as part of the 40 hours of instrument time for the IR. Unfortunately, there are places in this country where folks could go for years without ever getting any actual IMC time because the only time it's IMC, it isn't safe to fly. In addition, many CFI's giving primary instruction don't have the IA on their CFI ticket, and requiring them to give flight training in IMC would be inappropriate, even though it is legal. Thus, it would not be practical to implement it as a regulatory requirement at either level.

Seems to me that what's needed is a realistic simulation of IMC, way beyond what you get with foggles and including as much as possible the tension that exists when you blunder into a cloud inadvertantly.

It also seems like this is ripe for an AOPA Safety Foundation video. Something that records several actual non-IR pilots getting in over their heads in MVFR to IMC, complete with a loss of control, followed up with a repeat of the same encounter with the CFI explaining where the limits are and when to turn back/land/pass on the flight entirely.

When I was a newly minted PP, I wanted a CFI to accompany me on a flight into marginal conditions and help me learn the judgement necessary to determine when to quit without pushing too far or giving up too soon. I don't believe I ever got my wish, but rather pushed the edges on my own far enough to scare myself a couple times without coming to grief. No doubt there was some luck involved as in the adage about gaining experience before running out of luck.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It also seems like this is ripe for an AOPA Safety Foundation video. Something that records several actual non-IR pilots getting in over their heads in MVFR to IMC, complete with a loss of control, followed up with a repeat of the same encounter with the CFI explaining where the limits are and when to turn back/land/pass on the flight entirely.

Lance,

Somebody did that with a fatal Bonanza accident near Airlake in the early '90's until the family of one of the deceased sued him, I think.

Icing, spin recovery in IMC via radio instructions from another pilot, stuff like that. Truly terrifying.

Fly safe!

David

 

[mikea]

Seems to me that what's needed is a realistic simulation of IMC, way beyond what you get with foggles and including as much as possible the tension that exists when you blunder into a cloud inadvertantly.

It also seems like this is ripe for an AOPA Safety Foundation video. Something that records several actual non-IR pilots getting in over their heads in MVFR to IMC, complete with a loss of control, followed up with a repeat of the same encounter with the CFI explaining where the limits are and when to turn back/land/pass on the flight entirely.

When I was a newly minted PP, I wanted a CFI to accompany me on a flight into marginal conditions and help me learn the judgement necessary to determine when to quit without pushing too far or giving up too soon. I don't believe I ever got my wish, but rather pushed the edges on my own far enough to scare myself a couple times without coming to grief. No doubt there was some luck involved as in the adage about gaining experience before running out of luck.

That decision tipping point is the key.

I'm sure all of those dead guys still had the thought in their craniums, "I'll hold on for another minute or two..." or "I can hack it."

I've flown into the sun on hazy days where I was constantly trying to measure how much actual visibility range I had. That I'm here tells you I lucked through that.

I've had a few cases where I consciously made the decision to go on instruments. I think I have read enough scary stories to make my brain spring loaded to be ready to do that even without my IR. That I'm here tells you I lucked through that, too.

 

[DeeG]

I'm just curious about the "flight control continuity was confirmed to all control surfaces" statement. If the wings had separated from the fuselage, how can there be continuity to the ailerons?

IIRC, and its been several years since I chatted with the investigator......They look at the wings, and verify all wires are where they are supposed to be. They look at the fuselage and verify all wires are where they are suppposed to be. Obviously they take into account damage/missing parts where the wings seperated from the fuselage. And if there was continuity, there would be no (or very little, taking into account seperation/impact damage) damage to the control wires at the yoke, or at the ailerons.

If you post on the Babes board, ask Stache. He's one of them investigator types, I'm sure he can 'splain it a lot better than me.

 

[gismo]

Lance,

Somebody did that with a fatal Bonanza accident near Airlake in the early '90's until the family of one of the deceased sued him, I think.

Icing, spin recovery in IMC via radio instructions from another pilot, stuff like that. Truly terrifying.

Fly safe!

David

Yeah, that sounds scary. I was thinking more along the lines of a crew that consisted of a CFII plus a cameraman who would take a sample of non-IR pilots into actual clouds to film the result. Of course the CFI would take over before things got so far out of hand as to be unsafe. I assume that a block of airspace could be made available for such a flight so there wouldn't be any physical or legal risk for devaiting from the assigned path.

 

[Unregistered]

I sincerely think 60 minutes of flight in ACTUAL IMC should be required of all student pilots. Foggles/hoods do NOT simulate actual IMC conditions. The hour I spent in the clouds (with my CFI) was some of the most valuable training I received. I was POSITIVE I would never have the leans or any spatial disorientation, but the minute we lost the horizon my left wing started to dip. That hour of training made an indelible impression. If the FAA won't require it, CFIs should make every effort to figure out how to make it happen for their students. It might help keep a few folks safely on the ground.
Elizabeth

/confessional on

I have only had my PPL since May. Last month I flew into actual IMC under deteriorating conditions. I was in it only long enough to recognize it, turn and exit, and I had leans the minute I was in the whiteout and lost 200 feet of altitude. I should not have been there, and will not go there again. I need to start my instrument training.

/confessional off

 

[AdamZ]

/confessional on

I have only had my PPL since May. Last month I flew into actual IMC under deteriorating conditions. I was in it only long enough to recognize it, turn and exit, and I had leans the minute I was in the whiteout and lost 200 feet of altitude. I should not have been there, and will not go there again. I need to start my instrument training.

/confessional off

Ok Unregistered thank you for sharing that. I think it would be VERY helpful to the board VFR pilots, IR pilots and even CFIs to hear how exactly you got yourself into that situation. To me it would seem obvious to a VFR pilot that he was heading into IMC before he got there. If thats not the case we can all learn from your experience.( I guess Haze is an exception) Not being critical here. But if you can tell us what led you to get into the IMC perhaps those VFR pilots can avoid your mistake and perhaps your story can better help a CFI prepare his PPL student to avoid IMC.

 

[SkyHog]

my bad, that said 60 minutes, not 60 hours. LOL.

 

[gismo]

Ok Unregistered thank you for sharing that. I think it would be VERY helpful to the board VFR pilots, IR pilots and even CFIs to hear how exactly you got yourself into that situation. To me it would seem obvious to a VFR pilot that he was heading into IMC before he got there. If thats not the case we can all learn from your experience.( I guess Haze is an exception) Not being critical here. But if you can tell us what led you to get into the IMC perhaps those VFR pilots can avoid your mistake and perhaps your story can better help a CFI prepare his PPL student to avoid IMC.

I've managed to accomplish the same thing (inadvertent IMC) a few times. The two most recent occurred when flying VFR at night when I was instrument rated but for one reason or another chose to go VFR with a good VMC forecast that turned out to be in error. A third also occurred at night when I simply climbed into a cloud deck with a CFII in the right seat. Neither he nor I realized the ceiling was there even though there was nearly unlimited visibility below it and plenty of lights on the ground. The very first time was on a "partly cloudy" day with good visibility and to this day I don't understand how I came to be inside a cloud, but I did. This was not very long after obtaining my PPL and fortunately I was able to execute a 180 degree turn on the gauges and emerged from the cloud shortly after with the airplane fully under control. I doubt I would have been able to maintain that control for very long though, the whole encounter from entry to exit couldn't have taken more than a couple minutes.

The fact that three of the four occurred at night underscores the additional risk of night VFR flight where I've found it virtually impossible to detect clouds unless there is a moon shining clearly.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I sincerely think 60 minutes of flight in ACTUAL IMC should be required of all student pilots. Foggles/hoods do NOT simulate actual IMC conditions. The hour I spent in the clouds (with my CFI) was some of the most valuable training I received. I was POSITIVE I would never have the leans or any spatial disorientation, but the minute we lost the horizon my left wing started to dip. That hour of training made an indelible impression. If the FAA won't require it, CFIs should make every effort to figure out how to make it happen for their students. It might help keep a few folks safely on the ground.
Elizabeth

Would be a great idea if it were practical for all students (even 5 minutes would teach them a lot!). In lieu of it, an hour in a full enclosure simulator for private pilot candidates is almost as good as actual IMC, and most major flight schools have at least one sim of that level. I sought one out during my initial IFR training to freeze some approaches.

I don't know what a full motion sim costs per hour but if one was available regionally, flight students could use that if flying actual IMC was "impossible".

 

[poadeleted20]

The problem with sims is the same as with actual IMC -- just not enough of them around to make it feasible to require it. Note that even a full-cockpit non-motion FTD like a Frasca 141/142 doesn't really give you the same feeling as a flight simulator (which by definition has motion) -- the illusory sensations motion are significant in their effect. Nevertheless, whenever practical, these suggestions should be taken and implemented by flight instructors for their trainees.

As for the accident flight in question, there's really no excuse (short of the immediately impending arrival of a few dozen blowgun-armed, spear-toting Horvidos Indians at your current location) for failing to get a weather brief before an XC as long as this one was planned to go. That said, many folks use sources other than the usual FSS and DUATS channels, some of which are designated official (like FltPlan.com) and some of which aren't, the latter leaving no record of the briefing for accident investigators to find. Of course, the latter are not "official" for good reasons, usually because they don't have all the information one really needs to make an XC flight, such as NOTAMs, etc.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The problem with sims is the same as with actual IMC -- just not enough of them around to make it feasible to require it. Note that even a full-cockpit non-motion FTD like a Frasca 141/142 doesn't really give you the same feeling as a flight simulator (which by definition has motion) -- the illusory sensations motion are significant in their effect. Nevertheless, whenever practical, these suggestions should be taken and implemented by flight instructors for their trainees.

We never have too much trouble getting actual IMC over the course of any rating but, for any that do, consider that the FBO I trained PPL with had a light weight, black fabric hood that went from entirely around the flight students head to be fanned out and taped to the control panel, top, and both sides to the extent that cheating was absolutely impossible.

Solution is cheap, effective (maybe even MORE rigorous than actual IMC) and easily accessible to any flight student/CFI.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I always check the FAA TFR page http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/index.html and AOPA flight plan for TFR updates, even for pattern work. NOTAMs are "usually" posted......so YES I best make that call and have no doubts for myself and not depend on others to post........thanks!

Gary,

I get most of my info on the web too. The main reason for calling FSS is that they log your tail number. That may save your ticket if they try to bust you for violating a popup TFR or something.

 

[Dean]

I remember departing Auburn-Lewiston, Maine for Sanford, Maine(w/ flight-following). It was a gorgeous day but sometime after checking in w/ Portland(Class C) Approach I was into some unanticipated haze.

Sounds like the flight home from Gaston's the last two years. About as close to IFR conditions as you could get and still be legal VFR. (At times)

 

[dogman]

I can understand flying into clouds or IMC night and Day?

There have been many times here in Missouri summers ,hot humiid, calm that I have went flying in the late afternoon or early evening wx is calling 3-5Vis. You take off and climb get to 1000agl and look out and say to your self Holy Sh*t you may have 1 mile looking east and have trouble recognizing your wing tip lookng west. So I go around the pattern land and park it. You can get on the ground and look and see the haze but you would never think it to be that bad.
Many early mornings are IMC because of mist and haze in MO.
I have delayed mANY a flying trip because of low Imc in the morning.

I think there needs to be more training of some kind for all of us newer pilots like myself.

I had a pilot in the other day and we were visiting and like he was saying he thinks that everyone needs to spend more time finding really good CFII's.

I think we are all just people and no matter how much training we have we make bad decisions and some people just have a bad habit af making bad decisions. Its like when we have Icy Snowy roads and everyone is slowed way down safe and easy ,or some of just stay home or get off the road. Then there is the people that come flying by doing the speed limit passing eveyone. We all know we will see this person down the road layed over in the mediun. So which person are you driving in Icy conditions????
Would get in an airplane with this last person??

Jon

 

[Bill]

Sounds like the flight home from Gaston's the last two years. About as close to IFR conditions as you could get and still be legal VFR. (At times)

My flight home that year was bad, I called my CFII the very next day to start IR training, and was in the airplane under the hood that week.

Found myself in the beginnings of a graveyard spiral. There was a TS ahead of me, I was spirialing down thru a hole, haze, bad vis, while trying to talk with flightwatch, center, etc. Think everything is great, look at the panel, and notice I'm at 60 degrees bank and increasing, airspeed into the yellow arc. WHOA! I stopped everything else, and used the gauges to get it back in control. Never again. Nope!

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Would be a great idea if it were practical for all students (even 5 minutes would teach them a lot!). In lieu of it, an hour in a full enclosure simulator for private pilot candidates is almost as good as actual IMC, and most major flight schools have at least one sim of that level. I sought one out during my initial IFR training to freeze some approaches.

I don't know what a full motion sim costs per hour but if one was available regionally, flight students could use that if flying actual IMC was "impossible".

I can't help but wonder if 60 minutes of IMC for PPL students might not give them "just enough" courage to think "that's not so hard, I can do it! It's just a small cloud (thin deck, etc.)."

Maybe what would be better is to take them (with a CFII) into real IMC just long enough for them to lose control, get the crap scared out of themselves, then the CFII takes control and says "call me when you're ready to start your instrument rating. Until then, stay at least 500B/1000A/2000H away from the clouds!"

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I can't help but wonder if 60 minutes of IMC for PPL students might not give them "just enough" courage to think "that's not so hard, I can do it! It's just a small cloud (thin deck, etc.)."

Maybe what would be better is to take them (with a CFII) into real IMC just long enough for them to lose control, get the crap scared out of themselves, then the CFII takes control and says "call me when you're ready to start your instrument rating. Until then, stay at least 500B/1000A/2000H away from the clouds!"

That method could certainly be helpful, and a student will lose control because of spatial disorientation just as quickly under the fabric full hood/cape as they will in actual IMC so, no need to wait for IMC.

The FAA's view is to give them at least enough IFR training to be survivable after inadvertent entry into IMC (3 hours hood &/or IMC minimum) and with perfect judgement by the subsiquently trained pilot, that would be enough. To give further realistic protection, more hours of training by some of the available methods is required, to the level of proficiency desired or required.

 

[poadeleted20]

We never have too much trouble getting actual IMC over the course of any rating

Uh, yeah, in Seattle, that goes without saying. But it ain't the same in Clovis NM.

but, for any that do, consider that the FBO I trained PPL with had a light weight, black fabric hood that went from entirely around the flight students head to be fanned out and taped to the control panel, top, and both sides to the extent that cheating was absolutely impossible.

No question that you can't cheat, but that's not the point. Like the insidiousness of a vacuum pump failure, which cannot be realistically simulated just by covering instruments, inadvertant entry into IMC isn't the same as putting on a hood, or even a tent.

 

[Matthew]

My CFI took me into night/actual for about 1-1.5 hrs. That's the time I wanted the strobes on to see what that looked like in the clouds.

Most of the rest of my hood time was also at night. A moonless night under the hood doesn't give you many clues about which way is up. During the day I could usually see the sun in peripheral vision and get a clue as to general direction and orientation. I didn't want to cheat myself in this part of the training, so I preferred the night work.

Since I've been fortunate enough to experience both (with my CFI), I think I'd be more distracted or more likely to suffer from spatial disorientation in actual, than under the hood. At least under the hood you know you just have to peek outside, there's very little pressure. Wandering into actual, though, would likely cause me to glance outside too often hoping to see something and losing the concentration necessary to keep level and right side up. I hope I never have to find out.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

My CFI took me into night/actual for about 1-1.5 hrs. That's the time I wanted the strobes on to see what that looked like in the clouds.

Most of the rest of my hood time was also at night. A moonless night under the hood doesn't give you many clues about which way is up. During the day I could usually see the sun in peripheral vision and get a clue as to general direction and orientation. I didn't want to cheat myself in this part of the training, so I preferred the night work.

Me too!! I did all my instrument training after work during the winter months when it gets dark early (in Texas--it wasn't cold or icy). Night flight with foggles on makes for some pretty good simulated IMC, especially when you head south of the DFW metroplex and get away from all the city lights (it gets rural in a hurry!).

 

[tonycondon]

Shoot Troy, just head west. The VFR guys can practically log actual on a clear and a million night, there are nooooo lights anywhere out by Marfa and the like.

 

[ScottM]

I can't help but wonder if 60 minutes of IMC for PPL students might not give them "just enough" courage to think "that's not so hard, I can do it! It's just a small cloud (thin deck, etc.)."

Yep that would be a real hazard. May need to scare the students a little.

Maybe what would be better is to take them (with a CFII) into real IMC just long enough for them to lose control, get the crap scared out of themselves, then the CFII takes control and says "call me when you're ready to start your instrument rating. Until then, stay at least 500B/1000A/2000H away from the clouds!"

I was brought out over the water (Lake Michigan) at night under the hood, no moon, no lights, and told to fly the plane looking out the window and was in aturning dive in a few moments whithout realizing it. Cured my feelings of being able to handle IMC.


But here something else to consider. Some of these CFIs, I would say many, are young newbie pilots themselves and have limited experience in IMC. They may still be familiar enough with actual conditions to be a hazard themselves.

 

[woodstock]

I sat jump in our jet and we came into IMC as we were approaching to land - it wasn't for very long but we were turning - and I swear I only knew about the turn b/c I was watching the AI.

 

[silver-eagle]

Real story. About 3 months after getting my PPL, I rented a plane with the intent of taking my friend over to Nantucket. Nantucket was reporting clear below 12,000, vis 10mi, light winds. Marshfield at 8AM was socked in with coastal fog. About 9AM, some group selling rides started flying out VFR. Ceiling was still about 6-700' and my pax was getting anxious to get going. After watching the [group] return from their 2 sortie, and watching them through the pattern, I decided it couldn't be THAT BAD.
Running the normal preflight, we launched about 10 minutes later... Right into the scud. I did a turn to downwind at about 700 feet and was just barely below the clouds.
My next attempt, a half hour later, was IFR with my CFII. I now have .5 actual and a much greater appreciation of weather. Marshfield didn't improve all day and the group continued to fly; even with the scud.
Oh... Weather looks better from the ground and my personal minimums are 10 vis, 3000 few.
Could peer influence play a part in this kids judgement? Also, who's plane was it? My FBO has plenty to say when the weather is marginal.

 

[AdamZ]

Excellent thought John. I think I make good pic decisions but sometimes I do feel that I may disappoint a pax. I still make the right call but do get that feeling of boy he's gonna be bummed I don't let the feeling take over my judgement though. IMHO I think the pushier the Pax got the less I'd be inclined to launch.

Ironically I think a VFR pilot has a better out he just says sorry folks I'm not IR. Guys like me that are low time IR get the line... Well you have your IR don't ya so lets go. I'm just honest and up front I tell them yea I have the IR but I don't feel comfortable with the minimums I say its a safty thing and they understand.

Perhaps some dont' have the backbone to stand up to peer pressure.