frank marriott Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 A lot of good advice about IF conditions on various threads here but one important point that I haven't seen mentioned is turbulance [especially in the tropics]. An aircraft with a MTOW of 600kg or less is not something I would like to be in with the normal expected tubulance. You could very well find yourself fully occupied trying to keep the thing upright without any of the other important matters always referred to. Suffice to say that I would not consider it if my aircraft was VH registered and had IF certified Instrumentation - too light as far as I am concerned. [My CIR is way out of currency anyway] FrankM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 should not be a concern Frank...so long as the aircraft is flown below turbulence penetration speed..and the manufacturer has done the sums... Agreed. My point was intended more about the pilot input required as opposed to structal matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 There is more to turbulence than just the weight of the aircraft. I can fly the Corby at 350kg through turbulence that other RAAus planes would find uncomfortable. It is more about wing loading. Fly a Drifter with a low wing loading and then try the Corby. No comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Would you fly one in IMC? With correct set up it would be possible. - Just not for ME. The Corby I flew didn't have the electrical capability for any more instrumentation or VAC pump but ofcourse each set up is relevant to the particular aircraft not a particular make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I wouldn't limit the concern to 600Kg either all though that is the category we fly in RAA. Try flying an ordinary old C172 in moderate to severe turbulence and it can be quite terrifying as I found out on more than one occasion. Control in turbulence is a very good discussion point Frank. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Also a good discussion point is loss of controll in turbulence! Frank. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 There may be IFR rated Corbys, but mine certainly isn't. I don't have a DH or AH or turn and bank, so it is useless in cloud. No reason why it couldn't be upgraded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 My point in this post was not really about RAA and IFR or turbulence itself but for RAA VFR flying it is a consideration to be looked at. I guess my intended point was there is a big difference between flying dual under the hood as in a PPL in good weather as opposed to doing it in actual conditions. Add to this flying a computer based simulator without the actual feel. My thoughts were to post this as a thought provocating thread for those that haven't been there. A couple of recent posts where pilots have penetrated cloud and got away with it prompted my comment just to consider limited panel and turbulence at the same time. I don't presume to tell people how to suck eggs and not for the many here who "have done that" - I was more intending the info for pilots that haven't experienced it to be careful as it can get very dark very quickly and unless you have training (more then just theory) the stats indicate we will read about you rather then read your post of your adventure. As David said above in a C172 he has been concerned. I have been thinking myself in an IFR C 172 with a current CIR "WHY AM I HERE". Maybe I am too conservative but I am still alive after 30 yrss of flying. I hope you don't read about me doing something silly and if you do I guess I will not be worried as I would most likely be dead . FrankM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 I share youre concerns Frank....its a little weird that the PPL syllubus requires students to do 'under the hood' time....which only reinforces in their mind that they can do it ...'anytime'.. cficare I guess I archived my aim in that it is being discussed. People can take from it what they want. I just thought this aspect seemed to be missing in a lot of discussions? FrankM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Frank Your thread is very relevent as there are so many people that do not understand how dangerous IMC as a VFR pilot is and it's all so sad when someone ends up in the situation and it ends in disaster. I have had the good fortune to be able to do quite a number of hours (100 + in the right seat) in a Navaho in real IMC with a MECIR guy in the left seat without the aid of an autopilot and initially maintaining the correct scan even for 5 minutes was completely draining not to mention dealing with the turbulance associated with the weather to be able to remain on track at the correct altitude. Obviously it gets easier the more you do but even with that amount of time in IMC I would never purposely put myself in that position, and you would have to be out of your mind to do it with a limited panel in something with a BEW of 300 kg or less, structurally it might be ok but not on my shift. What is of concern though is that so many are willing to try and no matter what you tell them it doesen't get through, I'm not sure if this is a training failure or just a human failure but I remember when I did my training (back in the 80's) never in cloud was repeated so often that you didn't even consider it and when you were sitting on the ground waiting for the crud to clear the most often heard statement was "better off being down here wishing you were up there, than being up there wishing you were down here" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 FrankYour thread is very relevent as there are so many people that do not understand how dangerous IMC as a VFR pilot is and it's all so sad when someone ends up in the situation and it ends in disaster. I have had the good fortune to be able to do quite a number of hours (100 + in the right seat) in a Navaho in real IMC with a MECIR guy in the left seat without the aid of an autopilot and initially maintaining the correct scan even for 5 minutes was completely draining not to mention dealing with the turbulance associated with the weather to be able to remain on track at the correct altitude. Obviously it gets easier the more you do but even with that amount of time in IMC I would never purposely put myself in that position, and you would have to be out of your mind to do it with a limited panel in something with a BEW of 300 kg or less, structurally it might be ok but not on my shift. What is of concern though is that so many are willing to try and no matter what you tell them it doesen't get through, I'm not sure if this is a training failure or just a human failure but I remember when I did my training (back in the 80's) never in cloud was repeated so often that you didn't even consider it and when you were sitting on the ground waiting for the crud to clear the most often heard statement was "better off being down here wishing you were up there, than being up there wishing you were down here" We live in a time where foolhardiness has become a virtue and that may explain it a little. Another reason may be the prevalence of crazy computer games. If you get 'killed', you just push the PLAY AGAIN button and have another go. Someone going into IMC in an RA aircraft most likely won't have a PLAY AGAIN opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 We live in a time where foolhardiness has become a virtue and that may explain it a little.Another reason may be the prevalence of crazy computer games. If you get 'killed', you just push the PLAY AGAIN button and have another go. Someone going into IMC in an RA aircraft most likely won't have a PLAY AGAIN opportunity. That would work if this was a recent trend... Old blokes who don't play computer games (and old enough to know better) are doing it more than pimply teenagers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It requires a lot more concentration than most think and is very tiring in rough conditions. Limited panel is much more so... Some think that it is all BS and IF guys are making it up to bignote themselves. . The other thing is that you MUST get your information from the instruments, not how your butt feels. IF you think one of them is giving you an erroneous indication you are in the s#1t. I had my AH fail and roll at rotation at night out of Launceston where there were no lights whatever.. Had I followed the indication of that instrument alone, I would have gone straight in inverted. I checked the other 2 AH's so I am able to write this. Moral scan and check, and you must be current or you are behind it. Practicing in a non-motion simulator is only useful for procedures. It doesn't help control a lot. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 My understanding of the reasons behind the "under the hood" time were that it was a base for further training in the GA spectrum. Also the syllabus doesn't just ask for time but also for some form of "competence" to be shown. The one thing it did for me is show that it can be done but it's phenomenally hard work! I don't think anyone who's done only the minimum 2 hours would ever try to replicate the situation for real. The guys getting into strife on purpose seem to be mainly the Private IFR guys or the CIR guys who aren't current. When you think about it much of the training for a PPL is simply a grounding for further training (CPL etc.) - that's why it takes a minimum of 40 hours. The RA training's primary focus is on flying in good weather for "recreational" purposes. RA was never intended to be a direct competitor to GA however that's the way it has turned out. It was meant to be an avenue for the rag and tube guys to fly for fun with lower cost and regulatory burdens. Ask any of the original founders of the RA-Aus movement whether the planes they first registered were ever fitted out for instrument flight and see what their answers are... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I think even CASA is now aware that the old GA PPL was a path to Commercial Flying... I think their recent Restricted PPL is the first step in their plan to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 cficare. No reason at all for it to be IFR capable. I have done enough instrument training to know that I am not current and so I don't want the temptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now