should we discuss fatal accidents?
A study was done in Canada years ago, and as it occurred during my PPL training,...
This is a chinese whisper. The "178 seconds" statistics comes from a study conducted at UIUC more than 50 years ago. The interpretation of the results has been considerably distorted. The experiments were not conducted in a simulator, but rather in a Beech Bonanza. It had no AI, no DI, just a turn indicator. The pilots had had no instrument training of any sort as it wasn't part of the PPL syllabus at that time. Some of them had considerably less than 40 hours total time. None of them had soloed the Bonanza.
The point of the study was in fact to demonstrate the efficacy of a small amount of instrument training. Before that training, the mean time to loss of control in simulated IMC was indeed 178 seconds. After an average of 2 hours IF training, the experiment was repeated, and in 59 of 60 trials successfully made a 180 degree turn, maintaining control.
A number of aviation authorities have abused the 178-seconds statistic in the worthwhile cause of persuading pilots with little or no instrument training that flight in cloud is a risky proposition. It undoubtedly is.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR, out of interest - is the Canadian PPL very different from the FAA one? Reason I ask is that in FAA land part of the training and the checkride is recovery from unusual attitudes by instruments. Admittedly, this is done under the hood (although my instructor and I did practice it at night...), but still I'd find the times you give and which I don't doubt, worrying. 10 secs ???
Actually it's not too bad and you can fly cross Europe in it, if you can go 'on top'. But then, I'd know that only from my FAA ticket
Bookworm, I think you clarified that bit.
Strictly legit VFR is so horribly limiting that the temptation to penetrate a bit of cloud here and there is absolutely massive.
Bookworm, I think you clarified that bit.
Last edited by 172driver; 30th Oct 2008 at 20:44. Reason: Bookworms post
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it's not too bad and you can fly cross Europe in it, if you can go 'on top'. But then, I'd know that only from my FAA ticket
Now get out fast while we have another 100 posts arguing that old chestnut
All my long VFR trips, all the way to Crete, would have been quite impossible without flying VMC on top. Well, not to anything even remotely resembling a time schedule.
Unfortunately, VMC on top is rarely a useful tool in the UK because the weather which gives us low cloud (warm front stuff) also brings high tops (FL100+) which is unflyable in most of the UK due to controlled airspace. It works a treat in France, Spain, Germany, and Austria (over the Alps).
Moderator
Bookworm,
It would appear that I stand to be corrected. I'm old (ask my kids) but not that old! I recall in the mists of age, that if not that, a very similar study was done in an Air Canada DC-9 simulator, with what must have been very similar results. The Air Canada check pilot who participated was also a member of the flying club where I took my training in the 70's, and gave a presentation on the results of that effort. I conceed that it may not have been the same event, but it seems to me that the outcome was very similar. The intent was to demonstrate that although trained to a modest level, the pilots had difficulty maintianing the concentration, and scan of the instruments, and failed to recognize, or mis-identified an unusual attitude resulting from the failure to maintian straight and level.
Thus, my point being partly supported by my errant recollection, I stand by it, as it receds into history older than me!
172 driver, I cannot speak for the instrument training required during PPL training of this era, in Canada. I'm sure things have changed in the 35 years since I did my PPL. I can say that during my recent examination for PPL helicopter, I was examined for under the hood flying, simply to assure that I could indeed fly a safe 180 turn. I did, though only got a three out of four as a mark (I forgot to ask what I missed). The instruction given to me during my helicopter training was too brief. When the instructor came to be aware of my fixed wing flying experience, the instrument training was a check, not training. I passed, but should have done more and better.
I am therefore not the best person to ask about the differences in training on instruments - probably every pilot licensed since me has a better answer!
Pilot DAR
It would appear that I stand to be corrected. I'm old (ask my kids) but not that old! I recall in the mists of age, that if not that, a very similar study was done in an Air Canada DC-9 simulator, with what must have been very similar results. The Air Canada check pilot who participated was also a member of the flying club where I took my training in the 70's, and gave a presentation on the results of that effort. I conceed that it may not have been the same event, but it seems to me that the outcome was very similar. The intent was to demonstrate that although trained to a modest level, the pilots had difficulty maintianing the concentration, and scan of the instruments, and failed to recognize, or mis-identified an unusual attitude resulting from the failure to maintian straight and level.
Thus, my point being partly supported by my errant recollection, I stand by it, as it receds into history older than me!
172 driver, I cannot speak for the instrument training required during PPL training of this era, in Canada. I'm sure things have changed in the 35 years since I did my PPL. I can say that during my recent examination for PPL helicopter, I was examined for under the hood flying, simply to assure that I could indeed fly a safe 180 turn. I did, though only got a three out of four as a mark (I forgot to ask what I missed). The instruction given to me during my helicopter training was too brief. When the instructor came to be aware of my fixed wing flying experience, the instrument training was a check, not training. I passed, but should have done more and better.
I am therefore not the best person to ask about the differences in training on instruments - probably every pilot licensed since me has a better answer!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm is indeed correct - all those pilots spiralling to their death is a gross distortion.
Argue the case as you will, talk to the end of time about all the reasons why a pilot should not get himself into a situation when his scud running luck has run out, but it will still go on happening - it is why we are human.
The trick is dealing with it when it happens - because it will, and it could happen to you.
At best you have two options, at worst one.
A forced landing is one, if the terrain permits. The vast majority of forced landings even in poor terrain are usually survivable so long as the pilot does not depart from controlled flight.
The remaining alternative is inadvertent IMC. The trick is knowing when this is the only means of escape AND putting the plan into operation before it is to late. Clearly it is to late if the climb in IMC does not give you time to avoid terrain. Making that decision can only come with experience - it is always going to be a difficult decision to way the pros and cons of a forced landing, against a climb into IMC against pushing on in marginal VMC knowing that you might reach a point when a safe climb into IMC is also no longer an assured option.
In such an emergency can a non instrument rated pilot expect to survive?
I think they can. The instrument appreciation training in the PPL is reasonable. Maintaining a climb straight ahead on instruments really should not be beyond the wit of most pilots. With luck you will find the climb will take you through the layer. Even if it does not with help from AT you have a chance.
G-EMMA points out that she would be unable to handle partial panel. Well if there is a cascade of disasters, it is just not your day, and, I agree, you will do very very well to survive, but the chances of such a failure is very small.
In short I am not making light of a non instrument rated pilot feeling compelled to enter IMC in such circumstances - it is an emergency, it requires a mayday, but I think it is more than survivable. It is a measure of last resort, but, as I suggested earlier there will be times when some poor pilot somewhere will be out of options, he will judge that eventually inadvertent flight into IMC is his only option - the difficult part is making that decision before entry into IMC presents a serious threat of CFIT during the climb. However, he should not approach the emergency with the expectation of failure because he has read so many times disaster is inevitable. Follow the training you have been given, ensure at all cost the aircraft is properly trimmed to maintain the rate of climb and is balanced and assure yourself that you will handle the emergency as well as possible.
Argue the case as you will, talk to the end of time about all the reasons why a pilot should not get himself into a situation when his scud running luck has run out, but it will still go on happening - it is why we are human.
The trick is dealing with it when it happens - because it will, and it could happen to you.
At best you have two options, at worst one.
A forced landing is one, if the terrain permits. The vast majority of forced landings even in poor terrain are usually survivable so long as the pilot does not depart from controlled flight.
The remaining alternative is inadvertent IMC. The trick is knowing when this is the only means of escape AND putting the plan into operation before it is to late. Clearly it is to late if the climb in IMC does not give you time to avoid terrain. Making that decision can only come with experience - it is always going to be a difficult decision to way the pros and cons of a forced landing, against a climb into IMC against pushing on in marginal VMC knowing that you might reach a point when a safe climb into IMC is also no longer an assured option.
In such an emergency can a non instrument rated pilot expect to survive?
I think they can. The instrument appreciation training in the PPL is reasonable. Maintaining a climb straight ahead on instruments really should not be beyond the wit of most pilots. With luck you will find the climb will take you through the layer. Even if it does not with help from AT you have a chance.
G-EMMA points out that she would be unable to handle partial panel. Well if there is a cascade of disasters, it is just not your day, and, I agree, you will do very very well to survive, but the chances of such a failure is very small.
In short I am not making light of a non instrument rated pilot feeling compelled to enter IMC in such circumstances - it is an emergency, it requires a mayday, but I think it is more than survivable. It is a measure of last resort, but, as I suggested earlier there will be times when some poor pilot somewhere will be out of options, he will judge that eventually inadvertent flight into IMC is his only option - the difficult part is making that decision before entry into IMC presents a serious threat of CFIT during the climb. However, he should not approach the emergency with the expectation of failure because he has read so many times disaster is inevitable. Follow the training you have been given, ensure at all cost the aircraft is properly trimmed to maintain the rate of climb and is balanced and assure yourself that you will handle the emergency as well as possible.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
You do make a very valid point which many VFR pilots forget in the press home itis.
Should the VFR pilot with no or little instrument training feel that he cannot any longer maintain VMC he can always make an off airport landing.
Most light aircraft especially singles have a low approach/touchdown speed and any reasonable field or clearance will usually allow a controlled landing.
Better to have a controlled landing even if you hit a hedge or damage the aircraft than an uncontrolled crash from altitude or blind into terrain.
Pace
You do make a very valid point which many VFR pilots forget in the press home itis.
Should the VFR pilot with no or little instrument training feel that he cannot any longer maintain VMC he can always make an off airport landing.
Most light aircraft especially singles have a low approach/touchdown speed and any reasonable field or clearance will usually allow a controlled landing.
Better to have a controlled landing even if you hit a hedge or damage the aircraft than an uncontrolled crash from altitude or blind into terrain.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the word press-on-itis should not be used.
It is just an excuse used by the PPL training business to deliver a partial product, without accepting responsibility for its shortcomings when the customers try to use it for something half real.
Same with all the other daft proverbs like 'better to be down withing you were up than being up wishing you were down' etc etc etc.
Imagine two airline pilots, having to turn around in 20 mins or whatever. Imagine the pressure. Yet, they don't crash very often, do they? Why not? The pressure is massive.
Pilots should instead make go/no-go decisions based on technical data, initially by looking at the weather etc before departure. This needs a bit of training on the procedures. Then keep the turn-back option open (always) during the flight. Or, if IFR, the climb on top option, etc. When I fly IFR, if I cannot outclimb the tops I turn back. Not had to do it yet, touch wood, but had to go to FL190 a few times.
It is just an excuse used by the PPL training business to deliver a partial product, without accepting responsibility for its shortcomings when the customers try to use it for something half real.
Same with all the other daft proverbs like 'better to be down withing you were up than being up wishing you were down' etc etc etc.
Imagine two airline pilots, having to turn around in 20 mins or whatever. Imagine the pressure. Yet, they don't crash very often, do they? Why not? The pressure is massive.
Pilots should instead make go/no-go decisions based on technical data, initially by looking at the weather etc before departure. This needs a bit of training on the procedures. Then keep the turn-back option open (always) during the flight. Or, if IFR, the climb on top option, etc. When I fly IFR, if I cannot outclimb the tops I turn back. Not had to do it yet, touch wood, but had to go to FL190 a few times.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
I cannot agree that the turn back option is always available especially in circumstances where the weather is moving in from the side rather than from the front of you and in the situation where the pilot is no longer sure of his/her position. Press-on-itis reflects a real situation where a pilot is put in a situation where he is no longer flying within his or the aircraft limits. It is natural for a pilot to want to get to his destination the Graham Hill accident from years ago was a good example. Typically for the VFR pilot its often a case in deteriorating visibility or lowering cloudbase to go on a little bit further in the hope that things improve.
Flying IFR long distance I have only ever turned back due to mechanical technical problems which mean going back to base to rectify the problem.
I have had diversions at destination or on route but they maybe 90 degrees to my track and not back.
If you are comparing airline pilots then that is because they are flying within their own and their aircrafts limits. Obviously their and their aircraft limits are far far higher than the basic PPL in a small light aircraft.
To G-EMMA it is well worth investing in a copy of Microsoft flight simulator or another instrument training programme for your home PC. Even these gamey flight sim programmes make excellent instrument scan and nav aid trainers.
When you are not flying they do keep you current.
In inadvertant flight into cloud consider how easy it is to fly the aircraft VFR when you have the aircraft properly trimmed. You need only the slightest touch and you can often fly along quite happily with your hand off the controls using the rudder pedals only to maintain a heading.
Aircraft fly quite happily its the pilots who cause the problems. Most light singles at least have some form of wing leveler to aid you.
when you start instrument training its like riding a bike but after a while it becomes second nature and you can be miles away thinking about what you are going to do at the weekend while naturally flying instruments
Pace
I cannot agree that the turn back option is always available especially in circumstances where the weather is moving in from the side rather than from the front of you and in the situation where the pilot is no longer sure of his/her position. Press-on-itis reflects a real situation where a pilot is put in a situation where he is no longer flying within his or the aircraft limits. It is natural for a pilot to want to get to his destination the Graham Hill accident from years ago was a good example. Typically for the VFR pilot its often a case in deteriorating visibility or lowering cloudbase to go on a little bit further in the hope that things improve.
Flying IFR long distance I have only ever turned back due to mechanical technical problems which mean going back to base to rectify the problem.
I have had diversions at destination or on route but they maybe 90 degrees to my track and not back.
If you are comparing airline pilots then that is because they are flying within their own and their aircrafts limits. Obviously their and their aircraft limits are far far higher than the basic PPL in a small light aircraft.
To G-EMMA it is well worth investing in a copy of Microsoft flight simulator or another instrument training programme for your home PC. Even these gamey flight sim programmes make excellent instrument scan and nav aid trainers.
When you are not flying they do keep you current.
In inadvertant flight into cloud consider how easy it is to fly the aircraft VFR when you have the aircraft properly trimmed. You need only the slightest touch and you can often fly along quite happily with your hand off the controls using the rudder pedals only to maintain a heading.
Aircraft fly quite happily its the pilots who cause the problems. Most light singles at least have some form of wing leveler to aid you.
when you start instrument training its like riding a bike but after a while it becomes second nature and you can be miles away thinking about what you are going to do at the weekend while naturally flying instruments
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall a flight some years ago in a Chippy. The pilot was not instrument rated, and the aircraft was certainly lacking the nav aids. We set off in pretty marginal VFR conditions and proceeded very low level to our destination. I was “impressed” with the pilots ability to complete the flight, the accuracy and comfort with which he operated at very low level. Were we ever in any danger - probably not given the forecast, sea to the south and an improving base en route. Inevitably an engine failure would have required some quick reactions.
More recently my destination did not have an instrument approach. Moreover the passenger wanted to enjoy the scenery. I really enjoy flying low level. Conditions were marginal VFR below the base - it was typical scud running. As always the flight required a great deal of concentration (far more exhausting than flying on instruments). The weather conditions were both forecast and proved to be pretty consistent along the entire route. However this meant than even a small deterioration in the weather along the route would considerably erode the margin between the terrain and the base.
An area of rising ground and a small deterioration in the weather over the area demonstrated how easy it was for every escape route to quickly disappear. Turning back would not have produced a solution.
My point: Turning back can provide a very good solution to deteriorating weather and should be taken when ever possible. However it is not the panacea it is often made out to be. I suspect the problem often arises among more “experienced” pilots who feel capable of setting off in the first place in marginal VFR conditions. Since the conditions were always marginal, it is these very pilots who can quickly find the margin has been eroded, and when they are, the margin can be eroded over a wide area when the base descends by only a few hundred feet or the terrain rises by only a few hundred feet. Very quickly turning back is not an option.
Is the pilot guilty of press home itis? Probably not. He knew he was operating close to the margin in the first place and was more than capable of completing the trip in those conditions. The fatal mistake he makes is not recognising that the margin has become too small.
The ability in these circumstances to transition onto instruments can be a life saver. With a good GPS if in any doubt a 180 onto the reverse track and an immediate climb closely following the reverse track above the MSA provides a reasonably assured escape route without having to forward map read to ensure you are not going to run into something during the climb. Once above the MSA, with a predetermined instrument let down available the flight should be completed successfully.
In short if only a small change in the weather over the area you are flying would result in an inability to maintain VMC then in my view in the real world don’t be too surprised if turning back does not provide the solution you hoped for.
More recently my destination did not have an instrument approach. Moreover the passenger wanted to enjoy the scenery. I really enjoy flying low level. Conditions were marginal VFR below the base - it was typical scud running. As always the flight required a great deal of concentration (far more exhausting than flying on instruments). The weather conditions were both forecast and proved to be pretty consistent along the entire route. However this meant than even a small deterioration in the weather along the route would considerably erode the margin between the terrain and the base.
An area of rising ground and a small deterioration in the weather over the area demonstrated how easy it was for every escape route to quickly disappear. Turning back would not have produced a solution.
My point: Turning back can provide a very good solution to deteriorating weather and should be taken when ever possible. However it is not the panacea it is often made out to be. I suspect the problem often arises among more “experienced” pilots who feel capable of setting off in the first place in marginal VFR conditions. Since the conditions were always marginal, it is these very pilots who can quickly find the margin has been eroded, and when they are, the margin can be eroded over a wide area when the base descends by only a few hundred feet or the terrain rises by only a few hundred feet. Very quickly turning back is not an option.
Is the pilot guilty of press home itis? Probably not. He knew he was operating close to the margin in the first place and was more than capable of completing the trip in those conditions. The fatal mistake he makes is not recognising that the margin has become too small.
The ability in these circumstances to transition onto instruments can be a life saver. With a good GPS if in any doubt a 180 onto the reverse track and an immediate climb closely following the reverse track above the MSA provides a reasonably assured escape route without having to forward map read to ensure you are not going to run into something during the climb. Once above the MSA, with a predetermined instrument let down available the flight should be completed successfully.
In short if only a small change in the weather over the area you are flying would result in an inability to maintain VMC then in my view in the real world don’t be too surprised if turning back does not provide the solution you hoped for.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I agree there, Pace.
Every aircraft has limits and the pilot should not fly unless he knows what they are. Every pilot also has limits - legal ones (which likewise he should be aware of) and limits on what he and his passengers are willing to put up with.
The difference between an airline pilot and a private pilot is that the former has to follow strict go/no-go rules, written down in the company manuals and approach plates etc, and the other pilot is supposed to spill the beans on him if he busts them. PPL training is much more vague and that's what I don't like; IMHO with a little bit more one could achieve quite a lot.
As regards Graham Hill, the accident report does not suggest he was reckless, IMHO. He was flying long before the days when every pilot with more than 2p to rub together could have perfect situational awareness delivered on a plate (a moving map GPS), when the best you could get was a VOR (a few miles out if a few tens of nm away from the navaid), an NDB (much worse, usually), and perhaps a DME/DME fix (accurate but impractical as a moving target) and he was relying on visual cues and other stuff.
Every aircraft has limits and the pilot should not fly unless he knows what they are. Every pilot also has limits - legal ones (which likewise he should be aware of) and limits on what he and his passengers are willing to put up with.
The difference between an airline pilot and a private pilot is that the former has to follow strict go/no-go rules, written down in the company manuals and approach plates etc, and the other pilot is supposed to spill the beans on him if he busts them. PPL training is much more vague and that's what I don't like; IMHO with a little bit more one could achieve quite a lot.
As regards Graham Hill, the accident report does not suggest he was reckless, IMHO. He was flying long before the days when every pilot with more than 2p to rub together could have perfect situational awareness delivered on a plate (a moving map GPS), when the best you could get was a VOR (a few miles out if a few tens of nm away from the navaid), an NDB (much worse, usually), and perhaps a DME/DME fix (accurate but impractical as a moving target) and he was relying on visual cues and other stuff.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Yes, I agree for the untrained instrument pilot the autopilot is the best gift the manufacturer has to make. Truly it is a life saver for inadvertent IMC.
With an increasing number of aircraft being fitted with three axis autopilots maintaining control in IMC should not be an issue. Combined with a decent moving map and bases that are not actually on the deck at your chosen diversion you have a very good chance if you let the automatics do the work.
The usual caveats apply that the autopilot does give up on you, or the weather is not so atrocious that either the autopilot, the airframe or the engine are unable to cope.
To save any pendant comment I am not recommending in any way a non instrument trained pilot embarking on IMC with or without an autopilot other than in an absolute emergency.
Yes, I agree for the untrained instrument pilot the autopilot is the best gift the manufacturer has to make. Truly it is a life saver for inadvertent IMC.
With an increasing number of aircraft being fitted with three axis autopilots maintaining control in IMC should not be an issue. Combined with a decent moving map and bases that are not actually on the deck at your chosen diversion you have a very good chance if you let the automatics do the work.
The usual caveats apply that the autopilot does give up on you, or the weather is not so atrocious that either the autopilot, the airframe or the engine are unable to cope.
To save any pendant comment I am not recommending in any way a non instrument trained pilot embarking on IMC with or without an autopilot other than in an absolute emergency.
Administrator
Maintaining a climb straight ahead on instruments really should not be beyond the wit of most pilots.
But in moderate to severe turbulence, where the wings are rarely level and there are significant up / downdrafts?
I am pretty sure that I couldn't cope on instruments for more than a few minutes before losing control in those conditions - and those are likely (although not always) to be the conditions in and around clouds, especially with high / rising ground.
SD
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 780 Aviation Safety Review – 2008
CAP 780 Aviation Safety Review – 2008 has just been published. If interested, you can download it - go to the CAA website, search for CAP 780, save as target, and read at leisure.
"The most prevalent risk areas identified were:
• controlled flight into terrain;
• approach and landing accidents;
• loss of control in flight;
• in-flight fire;
• runway excursions; and
• runway incursions."
(Not read it yet, but that is all aviation, not just GA).
No doubt plenty of food for thought and discussion among those who wish to talk about accidents.
Chris N.
"The most prevalent risk areas identified were:
• controlled flight into terrain;
• approach and landing accidents;
• loss of control in flight;
• in-flight fire;
• runway excursions; and
• runway incursions."
(Not read it yet, but that is all aviation, not just GA).
No doubt plenty of food for thought and discussion among those who wish to talk about accidents.
Chris N.
