VMC into IMC

[turboplanner]

Nice work David, thanks! I agree with Nev, send it to the Safety Mag, you'll get the 500 quid easily - not only that but it's a really great story for us others to certainly learn from.It's interesting you say about the of submitting flight plans (that it used to be the case that you filed one for a flight) - because for my x-country flying I usually submit a flight plan to Airservices, with SARtime. I find it easy to do, and there is always a comfort knowing someone will come looking for you if something bad happens. You can submit one with naips on your phone, or even via a phone call. I don't do it all the time, but certainly if the flight is over suspect terrain.

You could also do that then Tomo, but you could submit a Flight Plan with Full reporting and they monitored you all the way. There was a much faster response if you got into trouble than there is today, but you had to be at your reporting points within 2 minutes of what your Flight Plan showed or you got these sarcastic calls and they started pressing buttons.

 

 

[Admin]

Posts regarding the disappearing of installment number 3 of David's great story have been moved to a new thread at:

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/disappearing-post-issue.27236/

 

 

[kaz3g]

...

• The quickest way out of cloud with a definate base is to drop altitude and get out of it straight away while you are certain of where the ground is...
   
   
  
• When you fly up a valley make sure that you leave enough room to do a turn if you are under cloud.
   
   
  
• Consider a precautionary outlanding ahead of a sojourn into cloud.
   
   
  
• Anytime you get into a bad situation a cool approach and managing the plane and your resources optimally will give better results than panicking
   
   
  
• Get on to ATC. They can tell you where to point it to a better outcome for clear air and things like that. Just say "stand by" if you are busy
   
   
  
• Keep those wings level.
   
   
  

 

 

Nev

Hi Nev

 

All fantastically good advice.

 

I originally did my time 'under the hood' many years ago but I accept doing it like that is like doing a x-wind landing at the max with an instructor on board. It's only when you have to do it by yourself that you really understand the pressure that comes on.

 

A few years ago a member of a well known club from MMB got into cloud on his way back from Echuca with passengers in a PA28. His and his passenger's account of what happened, and the account of the controller who was trying to assist, were all written up and published... I think it was in AOPA.

 

They survived but it was a very sobering story.

 

I guess the old rule still applies?Aviate, navigate, communicate and if you do the first one really well you won't have to worry too much about blind flying under immense pressure.

 

kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not so, Kaz - that superficial advice has led to many of the accidents other than the macho ones. The first difficulty is in recognising what is going on with weather conditions experienced for the first time (which may be years after training has finished). The second difficulty is recognising the point of no return where fast action needs to be taken.

 

One of the saddest reports I've read is of the two women who were aviating up a valley clear of cloud towards the Dom Dom saddle in Victoria and by the time they saw the valley was socked in it was too narrow to turn around. There were several easy things for them to havbe done, but they were just aviating as they'd been told.

 

DCA's etc etc etc to CASA advice of never get into cloud is fine, but the only real step forward I've seen over the last few decades is the minimum horizontal separation we work to today compared with the previous vertical separation.

 

At least with today's method, if you are simply following the rules you will be normally be starting a 180 turn several kilometres away from trouble

 

PS I've got a scan off the Dom Dom incident to post, just trying to find a way of getting the memory down small enough to post it.

 

 

[Guest rocketdriver]

I agree with you, Kaz. The old rule is normally invoked to remind us what to do when things go wrong and panic threatens while the brain seizes up. First control the a/c so you have time to work out what is going on, then plan your immediate next step and then tell someone who might be able to help or who needs to know (including your passengers .......). This HAS to be the order of things, as failure to accomplish the first will leave you with no opportunity to do the rest.

 

In quieter moments, I see the rule as still being valid, and, as you imply Kaz, the aviate bit includes a lot more than just handling the controls. It also includes that old fashioned thing called "airmanship" that keeps you from situations where you have to demonstrate your undoubted superior flying skills in order simply to survive ....

 

Regarding the two ladies mentioned by TP, I believe that a well planned flight would not have put them into a valley with insufficient room to turn around, whatever the weather. To say they were "just aviating" is incorrect, IMHO. Sure, they were controlling the aircraft, but I don't think they were exercising judgement and airmanship with regard to their location, future course and possible scenarios .... including engine,fuel, electric, as well as weather.

 

cheers

 

RD

 

 

[turboplanner]

Regarding the two ladies mentioned by TP, I believe that a well planned flight would not have put them into a valley with insufficient room to turn around, whatever the weather. To say they were "just aviating" is incorrect, IMHO. Sure, they were controlling the aircraft, but I don't think they were exercising judgement and airmanship with regard to their location, future course and possible scenarios .... including engine,fuel, electric, as well as weather.

That was really my point, just didn't come out clearly. What I was trying to say was that many pilots are comfortable to consider "aviate" being controlling the aircraft and most of these accidents have there beginning a long way back from that.

 

I agree with Kaz and your first para at the time the crisis does occur.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Alas this thread has gone exactly where I didn't want it to. The "you shouldnt get yourself in that position" is of no help to pilots or students. We all know not to crash, but still wear seat belts. We all know not to Outland in trees in a remote area, but carry epirbs. It's very easy for us to sit in our cosey arm chairs and say better planning would have stopped this incident before it began.

 

I'm still waiting for the rest of davids story. The lessons for us all in such a well told account are bound to be golden.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just a quick response to Cfi..Relatively inexperienced pilots freak out before I reach what I call "marginal" conditions. This is not because I am a "push on" person. I am the original live chickenman. They have their standards but the main problem is lack of exposure. This IS a risk. I am not sure if this is what Merv is alluding to. They have a limit which has been drummed into them, and I think they should stick to that. I wouldn't want to reduce it till something else replaces it..Nothing beats experience, but in getting it some people die..

 

Trying to get the relevance of all things I keep coming back to the fact of getting a fair bit of Instrument time early in the piece, NO doubt it saved my life many times. There is a difference though. I had aircraft with "proper" instruments. EVERY pilot who flys on instruments has to TRUST the instruments absolutely. The instant that you say "That instrument MUST be wrong, because your senses are telling you something else" You're GONE.. Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

Wow, that WAS a true blessing to have survived this journey with so many factors which could have twisted the end result; how different the outcome could have been that day!! I am sure all POB were praying during that flight.

 

 

[foxy]

WOW David. A remarkable recollection and i'm sure i speak for all when i say we are glad you decided to share it. One can only imagine the thoughts and adrenalin racing through you mind and body while all this was happening.

 

You were very fortunate to find a hole that popped you out underneath the soup, on a heading that took you right where you had intended to go. Unless you're instrument rated, the ability to trust those instruments and not what your body is telling you, i'm sure would be a particularly trying event...(having not been in the situation, i cant say for sure...) But by all accounts it shows just how important it is to stick ever so carefully into a part of the brain that we can come back to later to retrieve, those little tidbits of absolutely important information we get taught, but seem to rarely use.

 

Sometimes that fight or flight syndrome doesnt always lead to be a helping hand, but, glad that it helped you out by keeping you on your toes throughout this particular flight.

 

Liz.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

And that ladies and gentlmen, is the point ive been trying to get across....

 

Thanx David. I await your debrief on the flight before saying anything else.

 

cheers

 

 

[eightyknots]

I'm doing my PPL training at the moment. When I get to my 'under-the-hood' lesson, I will be paying particular attention to that component of the training

 

Thanks, David, for sharing this experience. It is most valuable for all who read it; there is a lot to learn from this.

 

 

[Powerin]

Thanks David for sharing that! It's another lesson that I shall store away and I hope it comes to the fore if I ever find myself in similar circumstances.

 

And thanks too Motz for starting this thread. As a student I'd like to know the answer to your question too. Obviously flight into IMC happens, as David found out, whether through bad luck, carelessness, poor planning or plain stupidity. It would be nice if you can give us students something better than "if it happens you are dead so don't let it happen". Statistics show you can survive. Why not give us another tool which might save our lives if stuff hits the fan one day? I don't believe such information would encourage risk taking any more than seat belts and EPIRBs do.

 

 

[foxy]

David, just to clear things up, I wasn't at all insinuating that you were bragging about the flight, but pointing out that your story was able to 'put me in the plane as the PIC' so to speak, and therefore showing everyone that its not the way to go......i believe there will be many lives saved by your story!

 

 

[Mazda]

Motz, in response to your comment that the training costs a small fortune, that depends entirely on how much you do of course. Personally I think every pilot would benefit from a briefing and one single flight with some time under the hood, and a flight with recovery from spiral dives and spins. I call it a good allocation of resources!

 

You are suggesting a PIFR is a good idea, and that is more expensive than a couple of flights. The PIFR was a great idea thanks to a certain founder of an electronics chain. The great thing about the PIFR is that you can add to it and end up with a CIR, or if anyone is doing a CIR you can be signed off for a PIFR at the same time. In its basic form it can still get you over the mountains through IMC to clear skies in the west, a very good thing indeed.

 

The other worthwhile training for VFR into IMC is EMT, because it expands on the recovery from unusual attitudes and the use of the vertical to turn in valleys. But yes, that is expensive training!

 

 

[facthunter]

ALL good comment (as usual) Mazda.

 

Andy, while the 178 seconds seems so negative it is based on a scenario repeated time and time again. Will It cause you to panic more than you would otherwise if you get in cloud? I don't know. I really think that you will certainly panic as you realise that you are losing control even if you haven't up to that point. The object is to deter pilots from going into IMC. People who panic easily should not really be flying aeroplanes. Not everyone is suited for it. Some are brilliant ( or may appear so for a while) but often appear to die doing something a little more adventurous than the ordinary. The safest pilots ARE those who manage their flying so that they don't rely on extraordinary skill or luck to get through the flight. You CAN get into cloud and be really caught out when you have done things pretty right, but it doesn't happen very often. People who push the boundaries will be in dangerous situations more often. Sometimes you are axpected to do it even though it is illegal. Well that is easily fixed... Don't do the flight, (but you won't have a job). Shouldn't happen you might say. Well get into the real world. because it does , often. IF you are going to do it ( for any reason) get yourself trained and have serviceable approved instruments. This is more applicable to GA charter. but some common principles apply and sometimes staying or getting on the ground is the safest option. Nev

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ok, lets look at some statistics.

 

This straight from an NTSB report into VFR into IMC, in 2001.

 

"The results indicate that the rate and severity of

 

VFR flight into IMC accidents has remained high since

 

the mid-1970s and 1980s (NTSB, 1989). Furthermore,

 

the types of accident causal factors associated with

 

VFR-IMC accidents have not changed significantly

 

over the past several decades. Together, these results

 

suggest that interventions have either not been

 

implemented or have been unsuccessful in curbing

 

pilots’ decision to continue VFR flight into adverse

 

weather conditions."

 

Aswell..

 

"Situation assessment. According to the situation

 

assessment hypothesis, pilots risk pressing on into

 

deteriorating weather simply because they do not

 

realize that they are doing so. In other words, pilots

 

continue VFR flight into IMC when they misdiagnose

 

the changes in, or severity of, the weather.

 

Presumably,

 

had they known that the weather was deteriorating into

 

IMC, they would not have flown into it."

 

It would appear that statistically, the 178 second approach to 'education' has had little to no effect on the amount of VFR into IMC incidents. It is still happening, is is going to continue.This leaves me wondering why? All I can know for sure is what pilots who have experienced it have told me. And now, I have added David to this list. And that is that they were at least momentarily distracted by the '178' thoughts of doom and gloom.

 

I reckon the study i have quoted has some answers to a better form of IMC education for VFR pilots.

 

"Decision framing. In essence, continued VFR

 

flight into IMC can be regarded as equivalent to a risky

 

gamble involving chances of success or disaster. The

 

decision to divert or make a precautionary landing, on

 

the other hand, can be regarded as leading to a

 

somewhat certain outcome. According to the decisionframing

 

perspective, the choice pilots will make under

 

these circumstances depends upon how the problem is

 

represented and what frame is used to interpret the

 

situation. If pilots frame their decision of whether to

 

continue flight into deteriorating weather in terms of

 

potential losses of diverting (such as time wasted,

 

money spent, or fuel used up), then they will be more

 

likely to be risk-seeking in their choices. In contrast, if

 

pilots frame the decision to divert in terms of

 

anticipated gains (such as ensuring the safety of the

 

aircraft and its occupants), then they should be more

 

likely to act in a risk-averse manner. Indeed results of a

 

laboratory study by O’Hare and Smitheram (1995)

 

showed that decisions to continue a VFR flight into

 

adverse weather conditions were less likely when the

 

prospects or possible outcomes were framed in terms

 

of gains rather than as losses.

 

I think this point could be a key, and indeed something for us as instructors to work with when dealing with this issue. But still is working on the prevention side of the equation.

 

 

[djpacro]

More information to discuss at the Aviation Safety Institute http://www.aopa.org/asf/ including some interactive courses - you need to register (free) to see these.

 

Since 2002, more than 86% of all fixed-wing VFR-into-IMC accidents have been fatal

[kaz3g]

That was really my point, just didn't come out clearly. What I was trying to say was that many pilots are comfortable to consider "aviate" being controlling the aircraft and most of these accidents have there beginning a long way back from that.I agree with Kaz and your first para at the time the crisis does occur.

Thanks, guys. I should have made clear that I regard aviating as doing all things necessary to fly the aircraft safely in the prevailing conditions and that means watching the weather like a hawk and making conservative, sensible decisions early in the piece so that the blood pressure stays in the green.

 

kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm with you kaz. Aviate has to mean more than holding height keeping the ball in centre when turning. I (and others I have met) use a term "think aeroplane".... This means get your act together, don't think of other things, and manage your aeroplane. Give it ALL of your attention..

 

Situational awareness is very much a part of it. What IS the situation I am in or getting into? What do I have going for me? ( the options available) Fuel , landing fields, return to departure aerodrome? evaluate. and plan. Risk assessment.....

 

How level headed will the decision be? Now we are back to human factors.

 

Can't miss work on monday. If I land in that paddock back there there will be paperwork and possibly I might damage the aircraft.. You get a wrong priority... I'm 3/4 there It's not much further . Can't afford the motel , flying in cloud can't be that hard . My wife expects me home tonight. The club wants the plane back for tomorrow...etc Pretty hard to predict what thought processes apply to individuals in these situations, but the pressure is on.. Nev

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

... Now we are back to human factors.Can't miss work on monday. If I land in that paddock back there there will be paperwork and possibly I might damage the aircraft.. You get a wrong priority... I'm 3/4 there It's not much further . Can't afford the motel , flying in cloud can't be that hard . My wife expects me home tonight. The club wants the plane back for tomorrow...etc Pretty hard to predict what thought processes apply to individuals in these situations, but the pressure is on.. Nev

Actually, the ATSB research report I linked earlier in the thread gave some insight into the behavioral aspects surrounding three choices:-

 

1. Divert.
    
    
   
2. Precautionary landing (other than at an airfield).
    
    
   
3. VFR into IMC.
    
    
   

 

 

Basically, they concluded that "proactive pilots" chose to divert in deteriorating weather, and such decisions were overwhelmingly in the first half of the flight. "Reactive pilots", overwhelmingly left a decision until the second half of the flight, when diversion was no longer an option. Of this latter group, those that chose landing mostly damaged the aircraft, but seldom incurred any injuries above minor. The remaining cases, quite often in the last 20% of the flight entered IMC where accidents recorded a fatality rate of 76%. There's other interesting findings in the paper.

 

Based on this, purely statistical, analysis it would suggest that VFR pilots who entered IMC missed two safer opportunities. That may not be true for all cases of course.

 

I've not infrequently observed early morning fog roll in locally. Going from no sign of fog to pea souper in a matter of 15 to 20 minutes. While I'm not aware of the extent of the coverage area, I also know that it can be thick fog at all the alternate airfields within 30nm (6 airfields). These fogs can last anything from hours to occasionally all day. So presumably, it would be possible to take-off at first light, or even up to an hour after sunrise, and suddenly find fog materialising below. I guess a full tank is the best insurance

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes david, the accident Rate VFR into IMC is not the same as the fatality rate. 80% of accidents in IMC were fatel. But what percentage of VFR into IMC resulted in an accident?

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Yes david, the accident Rate VFR into IMC is not the same as the fatality rate. 80% of accidents in IMC were fatel. But what percentage of VFR into IMC resulted in an accident?

It was based on 491 accident and incident reports from GA drawn from the ATSB database. 280 cases of VFR into IMC which comprised approx. 15% accidents and 85% incidents (I've interpolated the percentage from the graph so may be +/- a couple of percent).

It thus follows that of the 280 VFR into IMC occurrences, 32 resulted in a fatality.

 

* Having just checked those details in the report, I've corrected my original "about 80%" to the actual figure: 76%.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Thanx david. Very useful stuff when the topic is based around a notion that 178 seconds in the soup and your dead. A notion that is not validated by the stats, and has been the basis for my argument from day one.

 

What is validated is the fact that if you do prang your chances of survival are almost nothing.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I've not infrequently observed early morning fog roll in locally. Going from no sign of fog to pea souper in a matter of 15 to 20 minutes. While I'm not aware of the extent of the coverage area, I also know that it can be thick fog at all the alternate airfields within 30nm (6 airfields). These fogs can last anything from hours to occasionally all day. So presumably, it would be possible to take-off at first light, or even up to an hour after sunrise, and suddenly find fog materialising below. I guess a full tank is the best insurance

....and an empty bladder at departure.