VFR pilot, first real IMC experience

I flew from Amarillo to El Paso at night and that was certainly by reference of instruments!
 
TMetzinger said:
Sometimes you are. Regardless of clouds, any time you HAVE to use the instruments to maintain aircraft control, you're in IMC, by definition.
Click to expand...
Colloquially maybe, but I'm pretty sure the FAA's definition of IMC is conditions less than the minimums required for VFR. Could be low vis, could be too close to clouds, or in them. If you have to use the instruments to maintain control, then you're in instrument conditions. You can't legally be IMC if you're VFR, but you can legally be in instrument conditions as long as you're VMC (i.e., not IMC).
 
azure said:
Colloquially maybe, but I'm pretty sure the FAA's definition of IMC is conditions less than the minimums required for VFR. Could be low vis, could be too close to clouds, or in them.
Click to expand...

Basically correct. The Pilot/Controller Glossary defines instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) as

"Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."​

If you have to use the instruments to maintain control, then you're in instrument conditions.
Click to expand...

61.51(g) uses the term "instrument flight conditions."
 
N801BH said:
I respectfully disagree...
Click to expand...

Try it once :) Another example where this happens in a very crowded area is a nighttime takeoff from KDAB 25's runways. After takeoff and I-95, you pretty much face darkness even though the satellite picture would suggest it is lit up like a circus tent.
 
Edgefly said:
Warthog,
I went to the earlier 2014 thread and the substance of the Chief counsel input on that matter and I come away with this: Although the Chief counsel did make the clarifying definition required for that situation and Ron did precisely analyze the parts of it with his usual precision, I feel it does not provide any rationale for the actions taken by the OP. I'm sticking with 180 & Out. since the OP first thought hat he was in Class C, he had to maintain radio comms. His appropriate action was to say he was taking some action to return to VMC and do it ! as far as that being to much workload on him--MAYDAY applies.

Dale
Click to expand...

How can you be sure that 180 gets you out?
 
mtuomi said:
Try it once :) Another example where this happens in a very crowded area is a nighttime takeoff from KDAB 25's runways. After takeoff and I-95, you pretty much face darkness even though the satellite picture would suggest it is lit up like a circus tent.
Click to expand...

Same with KSBA. It should be lit up like a Christmas tree, but take off on the 15s toward the Pacific and it feels like outer space.
 
mtuomi said:
Try it once :) Another example where this happens in a very crowded area is a nighttime takeoff from KDAB 25's runways. After takeoff and I-95, you pretty much face darkness even though the satellite picture would suggest it is lit up like a circus tent.
Click to expand...







Funny you should mention that.....

Many times I have launched out of DAB after a week end of racing at the track... Usually I got the eastern departure with a 20 degree right turn at 300 msl to clear the area for the next launch, only to get turned westbound a couple of minutes later..

That way my eyes get flooded with the beachfront lights, and then the darkness of the Atlantic, and then the lights of the beach and mainland, only then to be sent to the darkest place you can imagine.. Dark like the inside of a cow, at midnight..:yikes:..

Ya see, I lived in Apopka and flew out of X04,.... Get a sectional and draw a line between DAB and X04.... That swamp is DARK..:hairraise:.

I safely made it every time..:yes:
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Regardless of clouds, any time you HAVE to use the instruments to maintain aircraft control, you're in IMC, by definition.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's blatantly incorrect. This is a good illustration of why you should always cite a reference that verifies your claims, and why anyone's claim without such a reference should never be trusted.

The AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary defines IMC as "Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions".

So darkness and visible horizons have nothing to do with it. A non-instrument-rated pilot can legally fly over open water on a moonless night, because even though flight by reference to instruments is required to keep the plane upright, that doesn't meet the definition of IMC. If it did, the flight wouldn't be legal, because a non-instrument pilot can't fly in IMC (CFR 91.155 and 61.3(e)).

IMC is primarily about separation, not about needing instruments to keep the plane upright. In the clear, dark, no-horizon scenario, seeing and avoiding other (properly lit) planes is not only possible, it's especially easy. That's why IMC is not defined to include such conditions.
 
3393RP said:
You seem to be fixated on the need to get on the radio and inform ATC he was in a cloud..."communicating your emergency should have had a high priority at that point". What's more important, concentrating on the AI or making a radio call? Keeping your spatial orientation or having a conversation?

You further recommend that he rehearse radio procedures "many times"...for what? So he uses the correct phraseology to inform ATC he is VFR in a cloud? Pursue additional training so the "correct response becomes second nature"? A radio conversation rather than piloting? Really?

What's more important, flying the aircraft and maintaining control, or talking on the radio?
Click to expand...

If OP had been unable to safely communicate while flying by instruments, then communication would indeed have been unwise. I already said that explicitly.

But what you're overlooking, even though it was pointed out repeatedly, is that OP was in fact having a conversation with ATC throughout the IMC incursion, and handled that workload easily

In addition, OP was even looking up ATIS frequencies on a sectional and tuning in to ATIS (which would have been unnecessary if "I'm in IMC" had been mentioned to ATC, since ATC could then have relayed any needed information).

But what OP failed to do during the ongoing conversation with ATC was to ever mention that they were in IMC and therefore unable to carry out their see-and-avoid responsibilities, thereby failing to alert ATC to the need for extra separation precautions.

So no, the point of training and practice for such a scenario is not to get the "phraseology" right. It's to understand the need for ATC separation in IMC, and the need to let ATC know if you're in IMC *if* your workload permits that declaration--which it clearly did in this instance.
 
mtuomi said:
How can you be sure that 180 gets you out?
Click to expand...

Numbers game.

Weather does move, both horizontally and vertically. And weather can either degrade or improve.

But two things you can say about the weather behind you - you were just there and it was just VFR. More than you can typically say about any other direction.

Unless it wasn't- which only means you should have done the 180 sooner.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
Colloquially maybe, but I'm pretty sure the FAA's definition of IMC is conditions less than the minimums required for VFR. Could be low vis, could be too close to clouds, or in them. If you have to use the instruments to maintain control, then you're in instrument conditions. You can't legally be IMC if you're VFR, but you can legally be in instrument conditions as long as you're VMC (i.e., not IMC).
Click to expand...

Correct. I expressed myself poorly, confusing IMC with actual instrument conditions.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
azure said:
Colloquially maybe, but I'm pretty sure the FAA's definition of IMC is conditions less than the minimums required for VFR. Could be low vis, could be too close to clouds, or in them. If you have to use the instruments to maintain control, then you're in instrument conditions. You can't legally be IMC if you're VFR, but you can legally be in instrument conditions as long as you're VMC (i.e., not IMC).[/QUOT
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Numbers game.

Weather does move, both horizontally and vertically. And weather can either degrade or improve.

But two things you can say about the weather behind you - you were just there and it was just VFR. More than you can typically say about any other direction.

Unless it wasn't- which only means you should have done the 180 sooner.
Click to expand...

True, then again, a standard-rate turn at 140kts takes you to very different spot than where you just were.
 
mtuomi said:
True, then again, a standard-rate turn at 140kts takes you to very different spot than where you just were.
Click to expand...

Very different?

Your rationalizations are -- troubling.

If you can't do a 185 deg reversal then a 5 deg course adjust to get 'back' to where there is VMC, I think you need some remedial training.

Your pilotage isn't the problem, your attitude is a very big problem.
 
TMetzinger said:
Correct. I expressed myself poorly, confusing IMC with actual instrument conditions.
Click to expand...
And I'm guilty of agreeing with that expression. :)

But I do find it interesting; the reason the VMC minima are as they are is primarily about traffic avoidance; cloud clearance down to nothing in Class B, and going up where the faster airplanes tend to play.

Yet the FAA acknowledge that there are VMC 'instrument flight conditions' - i.e. flying 'eyes inside' but legally VFR. They're effectively saying that big sky theory is acceptable for separation on a dark night.
 
mtuomi said:
So, I flew into a cloud inadvertently. Was flying up the shoreline a few nights ago from KMIA to KJAX, when Miami Center vectored me offshore to heading 060 or something like that to avoid traffic inbound to KFLL. Completely pitch black, no way to see horizon, half moon not visible due to an overcast layer. Still legal though. Until it wasn't. I realized I was in a cloud when I could suddenly see my rotating beacon flashing all around me.

I kept flying the assigned heading, got turned back eventually, but was still in cloud.
I got the ATIS from the nearest field, which reported overcast 035 or thereabouts. I made sure I was over water, and requested a descent to 2500. I set my hard floor at 2000, where I would reconsider my options if I wasn't clear by then. Miami Center said standby, so I kept flying until they told me altitude at my discretion. Perhaps I should have told them I was a non-rated pilot in cloud to expedite my request, but at that moment I thought (and still do), that the best thing to do was to fly as normal as possible, with reference to the instruments (which I have no problem with), and wait for them to clear me down. Any urgency would probably just have increased my workload in there.

Anyway, back to reading instrument pilots handbook. That experience made me decide I need my IR sooner rather than later.

In a weird way, I really enjoyed that.

Now: Should I report it, why and where?
Click to expand...

Good thing you kept calm and in control and made it. This is exactly why most countries don't allow Night VFR without an additional rating, you typically can't tell you're going to be in IMC until you are in it. Fill out an ASRS because this is the type of event that is what that form is all about, collecting data where "the system" failed and lead to a hazard.

BTW, the moment you entered the cloud, you should have told ATC you were in IMC.
 
Last edited:
tiger said:
And I'm guilty of agreeing with that expression. :)

But I do find it interesting; the reason the VMC minima are as they are is primarily about traffic avoidance; cloud clearance down to nothing in Class B, and going up where the faster airplanes tend to play.

Yet the FAA acknowledge that there are VMC 'instrument flight conditions' - i.e. flying 'eyes inside' but legally VFR. They're effectively saying that big sky theory is acceptable for separation on a dark night.
Click to expand...

No, they are saying that control of the airplane requires the same scan as other instrument flying. You still have to have your head outside looking for traffic. And yes, it does get rather intense doing both.
 
MAKG1 said:
With required position lights? Doesn't follow.
Click to expand...
My point is that one can't maintain an adequate VFR traffic scan at the same time as operating 'solely by reference to the instruments'. But that's evidently a scenario the FAA envisages (the 1984 Carr opinion makes this completely explicit).

EDIT - Warthog posted while I was replying. Yes, that's apparently what is expected. Head outside for traffic, head inside to maintain control.
 
Last edited:
tiger said:
My point is that one can't maintain an adequate VFR traffic scan at the same time as operating 'solely by reference to the instruments'. But that's evidently a scenario the FAA envisages (the 1984 Carr opinion makes this completely explicit).
Click to expand...

Once again, go fly on a dark night away from cities (or just go camping). You can see planes from miles and miles away.
 
docmirror said:
Very different?

Your rationalizations are -- troubling.

If you can't do a 185 deg reversal then a 5 deg course adjust to get 'back' to where there is VMC, I think you need some remedial training.

Your pilotage isn't the problem, your attitude is a very big problem.
Click to expand...
r

Yup. Guy fails to realize he screwed up. He is likely to do this multiple times in the future since in his mind, nothing was wrong. Scary and troubling. Hope he gets some time discussing with an Inspector to see if that can convince him of his errors. Scary and dangerous attitude being exhibited by OP and those that support his decision making.
 
acrophile said:
Sorry, that's blatantly incorrect. This is a good illustration of why you should always cite a reference that verifies your claims, and why anyone's claim without such a reference should never be trusted.

The AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary defines IMC as "Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions".

So darkness and visible horizons have nothing to do with it. A non-instrument-rated pilot can legally fly over open water on a moonless night, because even though flight by reference to instruments is required to keep the plane upright, that doesn't meet the definition of IMC. If it did, the flight wouldn't be legal, because a non-instrument pilot can't fly in IMC (CFR 91.155 and 61.3(e)).

IMC is primarily about separation, not about needing instruments to keep the plane upright. In the clear, dark, no-horizon scenario, seeing and avoiding other (properly lit) planes is not only possible, it's especially easy. That's why IMC is not defined to include such conditions.
Click to expand...

This may be true regarding the verbatim definition of IMC, but on the flip side those conditions are actually considered by the FAA to be "actual instrument" for the purposes for logging. So it's one of those odd cases where you aren't legally in IMC but you are in actual instrument conditions.
 
KA550 said:
r

Yup. Guy fails to realize he screwed up. He is likely to do this multiple times in the future since in his mind, nothing was wrong. Scary and troubling. Hope he gets some time discussing with an Inspector to see if that can convince him of his errors. Scary and dangerous attitude being exhibited by OP and those that support his decision making.
Click to expand...


:confused: I must be reading something different than y'all. I don't see a problem with his attitude. He realizes he put himself in a bind and has determined that he needs to get his IR sooner than later. He did not panic when it occurred, he thought his way through it and remained calm and in control. Regardless anything else he may have done, this is a good sign.

The only thing I can fault him on here is not immediately notifying ATC that he was in inadvertent IMC only because they needed to know that he was unable to "see and avoid" in that airspace.

I think he's learned a valuable lesson, and although some of his actions may have been inappropriate, his base, primal, reactions were 100%+.
 
docmirror said:
Very different?

Your rationalizations are -- troubling.

If you can't do a 185 deg reversal then a 5 deg course adjust to get 'back' to where there is VMC, I think you need some remedial training.

Your pilotage isn't the problem, your attitude is a very big problem.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Just don't fly over my hangar or house, and don't make a spectacle out of yourself, GA doesn't need the bad publicity.
 
James331 said:
:yeahthat:

Just don't fly over my hangar or house, and don't make a spectacle out of yourself, GA doesn't need the bad publicity.
Click to expand...

The only problem with him doing an immediate reversal is the airspace he was in is busy and he could have turned himself into the path of a commercial jet killing a hundred or more people rather than ending up in a graveyard spiral killing just himself. One would make a blip in the news, the other a travesty. Sometimes there is no good choice and you just do what you can.
 
warthog1984 said:
Once again, go fly on a dark night away from cities (or just go camping). You can see planes from miles and miles away.
Click to expand...
That's true (I admit I haven't done it in a long time).

But just to split this hair a little finer, I think there are potentially 'actual instrument flight conditions' that are legal VMC in daylight. I remember reading about a Pitts driver (actually, it might have been here) who had to cross a body of water with his thumb on the sun in the canopy - no gyros - once he lost the visual horizon.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
The only problem with him doing an immediate reversal is the airspace he was in is busy and he could have turned himself into the path of a commercial jet killing a hundred or more people rather than ending up in a graveyard spiral killing just himself. One would make a blip in the news, the other a travesty. Sometimes there is no good choice and you just do what you can.
Click to expand...

My advice was two-fold. He was on freq with ATC. I advised the 180, and also to call up and admit he was IMC and making the reversal. While I didn't say use the E word, that would clear a lot of airspace really quick.

If we're going to play 'what if', how about the situation where he keeps going, descends, suffers SD, spins down into the path of a commercial jet killing a hundred or more people.

If you are going to make stuff up, we can do the same.
 
KA550 said:
Yup. Guy fails to realize he screwed up. He is likely to do this multiple times in the future since in his mind, nothing was wrong. Scary and troubling. Hope he gets some time discussing with an Inspector to see if that can convince him of his errors. Scary and dangerous attitude being exhibited by OP and those that support his decision making.
Click to expand...
I don't see any failure to realize he screwed up. It's pretty clear he knows he shouldn't have been where he was, and he knows he needs the IR. When he was in the situation, he kept his head, flew the plane, and got out safely. He didn't panic, despite the "178 seconds to live" meme that must have been floating around in the back of his mind. And he now knows he's capable of flying on instruments, and that knowledge should help him when he begins instrument training.

Hopefully from the debrief here he has learned the *reason* why it's illegal to fly VFR in IMC, and why the single biggest mistake he made, once in the clouds, was failure to notify ATC.
 
tiger said:
That's true (I admit I haven't done it in a long time).

But just to split this hair a little finer, I think there are potentially 'actual instrument flight conditions' that are legal VMC in daylight. I remember reading about a Pitts driver (actually, it might have been here) who had to cross a body of water with his thumb on the sun in the canopy - no gyros - once he lost the visual horizon.
Click to expand...
Definitely. If you ever cross Lake Michigan on a hazy summer day between say, 5000 and 10000, you'll learn that first hand.
 
docmirror said:
My advice was two-fold. He was on freq with ATC. I advised the 180, and also to call up and admit he was IMC and making the reversal. While I didn't say use the E word, that would clear a lot of airspace really quick.

If we're going to play 'what if', how about the situation where he keeps going, descends, suffers SD, spins down into the path of a commercial jet killing a hundred or more people.

If you are going to make stuff up, we can do the same.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that what he did was not the proper way to handle the situation, but his reaction to the situation is more critical. His reaction was to remain calm and in control. That is something that cannot be learned. How to act correctly in similar circumstances can be learned, but only if one survives the first time.

He has already figured out what he did wrong and that he needs an IR sooner than later. I see no reason to dog the guy for making the choice to continue on his traffic avoidance clearance issued and keeping the risk factor to himself rather than freaking out and potentially endangering others. I agree, and have stated as such, that as soon as he got in the cloud he should have notified ATC, I doubt that he disagrees with this assessment in the view that hindsight allows. That he has the opportunity to apply that hindsight is a credit to his reaction.

We all make mistakes, some of us get to learn from them, others never get the opportunity, that is the reality of aviation. I doubt if it happened again tonight that his actions would be the same.
 
I don't believe I advised freaking out.

This is the last time.

Make 180 turn back to VMC.

Advise ATC ASAP of your change in direction and the reason why: "Approach - Bugsmasher 234 inadvertent IMC, turning left 1-8-0 right now."

End of statement.
 
docmirror said:
I don't believe I advised freaking out.

This is the last time.

Make 180 turn back to VMC.

Advise ATC ASAP of your change in direction and the reason why: "Approach - Bugsmasher 234 inadvertent IMC, turning left 1-8-0 right now."

End of statement.
Click to expand...

Is this what you did last time this happened to you?
 
N801BH said:
Originally Posted by docmirror
Was the OP in airspace which required positive control/vectors? (class B or C) Or was this a case of FF?






ATC can NOT give vectors to VFR aircraft.. They can ( suggest) a heading though..;)
Click to expand...
Tell that to the controllers at MEM
 
N801BH said:
Originally Posted by docmirror
Was the OP in airspace which required positive control/vectors? (class B or C) Or was this a case of FF?






ATC can NOT give vectors to VFR aircraft.. They can ( suggest) a heading though..;)
Click to expand...

I don't think that is accurate in Class C airspace, where he was.
 
Interesting. A dark, moonless night, over featureless terrain. (ocean) The Only way the OP knew he flew into a cloud was the reflection of his rotating beacon on the cloud.
Let's throw a monkey wrench into the works. Suppose his beacon was working when he departed, but it failed some time during the flight. (prior to entering the clouds)
He knew nothing about it. would he have known that he was in the clouds, untill he got back and descended to enter the TP.?
 
mtuomi said:
Is this what you did last time this happened to you?
Click to expand...

Well the one time this happened to me, I wasn't talking to ATC. So I just did the 180, and when I popped back out of the clouds (1 minute for the turn and about 30 seconds later), I said "whew" and headed back to my departure airport.

In a related event, before I was instrument rated, I was flying from Frederick Maryland (KFDK) to Laconia NH (KLCI). Day VFR, worst weather in the forecast was predicted to be scattered clouds when I launched. As I crossed the Hudson up near the Tappan Zee, I noticed the clouds were thickening ahead. I was on flight following, so with my number two radio I called flight watch, and was given updated weather including overcast ahead.

Now, at that point, I had no worries - it was still VFR behind me and going to remain that way, and I had enough fuel to turn around and go home. But Orange (KORE) airport in Mass was still reporting VFR, so I called up ATC, told them I was going to divert to Orange, and requested a vector and the latest weather. ATC was clearly wanting to be helpful, they asked if I was rated and equipped for instrument flying. I said "no but it's fine up here at 5500, if we can't land at Orange we'll turn around and go back west". The controller gave me vectors and pretty much held my hand all the way to Orange, where I had to go around once do to a scattered cloud right on final, but soon we were on the ground and happy. And in three hours a cold front passed through and the weather cleared, and we went up to Laconia.

(good food at the nearby diner too!)

But the point here is that I was NEVER in any danger, as I could see the weather (daytime) and I had a large number of alternatives. ATC was still very helpful and kept things at a low stress level. But I resolved to get my instrument rating that day, because the kind of weather that made me divert was the perfect weather for IFR flying in a single - no convection, no ice, relatively thin overcast layer.

Enjoy getting and using the rating - it really can add a great amount of utility to your airplane. It also gives you additional ways to kill yourself depending on how well you manage risk with the capabilities of yourself and your aircraft.

Best wishes,
 
mtuomi said:
Is this what you did last time this happened to you?
Click to expand...

I've never let ATC vector me into IMC, unless of course, I was on an IFR plan. In this case, there was no way to know that they were heading you in there. Ergo - flight training provides a process for that situation.
 
warthog1984 said:
Once again, go fly on a dark night away from cities (or just go camping). You can see planes from miles and miles away.
Click to expand...

Except for planes that are lower than your altitude, I've noticed that the same is true in cities as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top