BrendAn Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rastus Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Plenty of people seem to think there's nothing to it.. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed in this PoA forum: Pilots of America forum "How long can you keep it up" March 27 2018 A couple of excerpts: Everskyward said: I think the video might have a negative impact on VFR pilots who have viewed it. If you think you're going to crash and die it's probably harder to stay calm and work through the problem. For me, the presentation, at least the introduction, is something worthy of a tabloid TV show. Strongly agreed, and that was my reaction the first time I saw it. The last thing we should be doing is inducing panic. Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said: So the stupid 178 number came from a study in the '50s where they took some pilots with exactly zero (as in none, ever) experience flying on instruments. (Not even once.) Stuck them in a Bo. Covered up the AI, DG, and rate of climb, and said "your airplane". And, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots. But 178 seconds Yes, 178 seconds was the average time that a pilot was able to fly blind without instruments. But what they didn't tell you is that this group was the control group...pilots with zero training, zero instruments and zero visibility. Even an IFR trained pilot is likely to crash in that situation. In fact, the study was actually to test whether or not a VFR pilot could be trained to use instruments to make a 180 turn. After "crashing", they taught each pilot the techniques to execute a 180 with reference to instruments and tested them again - every single pilot was able to learn to reverse course and get out of the clouds again. Then someone came up with a scare video based on the control group and how clouds were a deathtrap waiting to snare VFR pilots and lure them to their doom. Now, that is all anyone know of the study and the real lesson has been lost to the drama. Sigh.... And this discussion where the original experiment was returned to its context: 178 seconds -- the facts about the experiment GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled "180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the record straight. * The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI. * It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC * The tests were conducted on a Beech Bonanza C-35 in flight (not a "ground trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article) * The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not "none since primary training", none at all) * The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly. * None of the subjects had soloed a Bonanza. As far as I can tell, only 3 of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers. * Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total. * The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the entire experiment. * The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude. The time was measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an 'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall. * 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft into a whip-stall. * Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178 seconds * There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study * By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours (mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique. * The subjects were again tested by simulating instrument conditions, and asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times. * Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual below cloud, the impact would have been survivable. The technique: Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder. 1) Hands off the control column 2) Lower the landing gear 3) Reduce power 4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph) 5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph 6) Note the compass heading 7) Turn using the rudder 😎 Roll out with appropriate lead or lag 9) Center the turn needle 10) Reduce power for a controlled descent It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most difficult psychologically! The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex aircraft. Julian Scarfe Edited May 14 by Garfly 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 I would not use any forum as a reliable source of information on this subject The "Technique"... Is real BS. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 minute ago, Garfly said: There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed in this PoA forum: Pilots of America forum "How long can you keep it up" March 27 2018 A couple of excerpts: Everskyward said: I think the video might have a negative impact on VFR pilots who have viewed it. If you think you're going to crash and die it's probably harder to stay calm and work through the problem. For me, the presentation, at least the introduction, is something worthy of a tabloid TV show. Strongly agreed, and that was my reaction the first time I saw it. The last thing we should be doing is inducing panic. Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said: So the stupid 178 number came from a study in the '50s where they took some pilots with exactly zero (as in none, ever) experience flying on instruments. (Not even once.) Stuck them in a Bo. Covered up the AI, DG, and rate of climb, and said "your airplane". And, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots. But 178 seconds Yes, 178 seconds was the average time that a pilot was able to fly blind without instruments. But what they didn't tell you is that this group was the control group...pilots with zero training, zero instruments and zero visibility. Even an IFR trained pilot is likely to crash in that situation. In fact, the study was actually to test whether or not a VFR pilot could be trained to use instruments to make a 180 turn. After "crashing", they taught each pilot the techniques to execute a 180 with reference to instruments and tested them again - every single pilot was able to learn to reverse course and get out of the clouds again. Then someone came up with a scare video based on the control group and how clouds were a deathtrap waiting to snare VFR pilots and lure them to their doom. Now, that is all anyone know of the study and the real lesson has been lost to the drama. Sigh.... And this discussion where the original experiment was returned to its context: 178 seconds -- the facts about the experiment GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled "180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the record straight. * The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI. * It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC * The tests were conducted on a Beech Bonanza C-35 in flight (not a "ground trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article) * The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not "none since primary training", none at all) * The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly. * None of the subjects had soloed a Bonanza. As far as I can tell, only 3 of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers. * Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total. * The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the entire experiment. * The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude. The time was measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an 'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall. * 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft into a whip-stall. * Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178 seconds * There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study * By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours (mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique. * The subjects were again tested by simulating instrument conditions, and asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times. * Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual below cloud, the impact would have been survivable. The technique: Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder. 1) Hands off the control column 2) Lower the landing gear 3) Reduce power 4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph) 5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph 6) Note the compass heading 7) Turn using the rudder 😎 Roll out with appropriate lead or lag 9) Center the turn needle 10) Reduce power for a controlled descent It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most difficult psychologically! The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex aircraft. Julian Scarfe Over the years, we've actually lost a few from this site after the discussions were hijacked by people criticising this video. Of course you might be able to keep going for more than 178 seconds; of course you may only last 20 seconds, of course you don't have magic ears; "The sensory areas of the inner ear cannot detect slight changes in angular acceleration, nor can they accurately sense changes that occur at a uniform rate over a period. On the other hand, false sensations are often generated due simply to movements of the head and may lead the pilot to believe the attitude of the airplane has changed when, in fact, it has not. " What usually happens is the ones that get killed play around with flying near cloud and through light cloud with clear patches, and becomes more and more confident, oten loudly condemning the 178 seonc video. Then we see the photos of a squashed pilot. RA pilots will not be flying into IFR; if you break the rules you will be flying into IMC. IFR stands for Instrument Flight Rules and you need to qualify in GA and have a suitable GA aircraft for IMC. RA Pilots have to do a lot wrong to get into the above predicament: The diagramme below is from page 205 of the Visual Flight Rules Guide 2024. You are required to have 5 kilometres clear vision in front of you at all times. When the cloud gets that close you turn around and get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 Instrument Meteorological Conditions IS indeed the correct term. Conditions permitting VFR flight are covered above. VFR at night requires special training and has extra risks associated with it for obvious reasons. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, turboplanner said: Over the years, we've actually lost a few from this site after the discussions were hijacked by people criticising this video. "Hijacked" huh!!?? And thereby "lost a few", eh? Oh, really?!! Choice language; choice accusations you throw around willy nilly. If you cared to look you'd see I was first to endorse the deadly message of the original video posted by BrendAn above.. That could indicate that I'm not especially needful of your stern lecture on the subject. If you had the discernment to see beyond dogma you'd get it; the issue is about the most effective way to get the message across, not the (obvious) message itself. Which, by the way, nobody is denying. To quote Capt.Thorpe, lead critic (above) of 178 secs "and, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots." So time to climb down off your charger, the dangerous straw-men you spied are now scattered to the four winds. Edited May 14 by Garfly 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 6 minutes ago, Garfly said: "Hijacked" huh!!?? And thereby "lost a few", eh? Oh, really?!! Choice language; choice accusations you throw around willy nilly. If you cared to look you'd see I was first to endorse the deadly message of the original video posted by Brendan above.. That could indicate that I'm not especially needful of your stern lecture on the subject. If you had the discernment to see beyond dogma you'd get it; the issue is about the most effective way to get the message across, not the (obvious) message itself. Which, by the way, nobody is denying. To quote Capt.Thorpe, lead critic of 178 secs "and, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots." So time to climb down off your charger, the dangerous straw-men you spied are now scattered to the four winds. By all means feel free to ignore what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 11 minutes ago, turboplanner said: By all means feel free to ignore what I said. There you go again with your straw men. What you said about the dangers of IMC to VFR pilots can hardly be ignored by anyone; it's true - all too obviously so. What should be ignored (easier said than done) is your patronising attack on any but the most conventional means of spreading the word. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 2 hours ago, facthunter said: I would not use any forum as a reliable source of information on this subject The "Technique"... Is real BS. Nev I, for one, would like to have you expand on that, Nev. You could say that 'forums' are as reliable - or not - as other sources. It depends. Discernment is key. Anyway, how about these two excerpts on the subject (from authoritative journals) This is one from Aviation Safety Magazine: Losing Orientation • Getting at the real-world causes of spatial disorientation. ... // Two Seconds Short of Three Minutes A 1954 study, the “180-degree Turn Experiment” commissioned by the AOPA Foundation and conducted by the University of Illinois, studied 20 non-instrument pilots flying a Beech C35 Bonanza. The purpose was to teach a simple recovery technique for disorientation in IMC. The technique involved leveling the wings, centering the ball, slowing the plane down, controlling the altitude with trim and slowly doing a 180-turn with rudder alone (to avoid over-controlling). Once heading in the opposite direction, participants were taught to reduce power and start a gentle descent to assist in gently breaking out below the ceiling without inducing disorientation. The study is famous, or infamous if you will, for the statistics recorded before the subjects learned the recovery technique. It took them an average of 178 seconds from the VFR-to-IMC transition to enter either a stall or graveyard spiral. There’s a video out there popularizing the study and whether you read the script or view one of the video’s several versions, the melodramatic countdown reinforces the idea that the average VFR-only pilot has less than three minutes before they are dead unless they have some kind of coping strategy to safely get out of the clouds. The recovery technique taught in the 1954 study, a 180-degree turn out of IMC back to VMC, proved remarkably effective. With six one-hour training sessions, the study’s subjects improved the 178-second crash-and-burn statistic to a 98-percent survival rate. This is a bit from an AOPA article which tends away from the 180 "technique" toward the climb straight ahead escape method (for anyone caught out). ... // Plan A: Avoid VFR into IMC The best antidote to a scary VFR into IMC encounter is to set personal minimums reflecting your proficiency level and adjusting them as needed. In addition, use flight-risk assessment tools to make well-informed go/no-go decisions ... /// Plan B: Escape VFR into IMC Do you have a plan? Execute it immediately. Generally, we are taught to conduct a 180-degree turn to better weather conditions left behind. That could work if making the turn before entering the clouds. Another option could be to climb straight ahead—no turns and a light touch on the flight controls—until you’ve cleared the clouds. This requires little head movement to avoid experiencing spatial disorientation. In addition, you could declare an emergency with ATC. Controllers trained on VFR into IMC flight emergencies can help find better weather to escape to. Losing Orientation - Aviation Safety WWW.AVIATIONSAFETYMAGAZINE.COM A common night disorientation scenario is transiting from an area with many lights to empty countryside with few scattered lights (or none at all). I distinctly remember my first experience with night disorientation. 178 seconds WWW.AOPA.ORG Visual flight rules (VFR) flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) is the worst weather-related cause of general aviation accidents each year—with an 86-percent fatality rate—involving VFR and... Edited May 14 by Garfly 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted May 14 Author Share Posted May 14 that video i posted shows how easy that pilot and his family could have lived. he just made bad decisions until it was too late. all these videos suggest switch to autopilot if equipped because it does not care if its in clouds but the pilot believed it was u/s because he had not learn't how to use it. he could have turned back early as well. he accepted an imc route when he wasn't rated for it. so many mistakes . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 With today's technology, IMC should be less dangerous. The pilot under the hood , is only trained to VFR , ( previous to their upgrade to ir ) . spacesailor 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 If you've done much Instrument flying you wouldn't need me to tell you what's wrong with the "technique" bit. Limited Panel is difficult and also tiring. You need at least one gyro instrument. If you have a good Full panel the artificial horizon makes it relatively simple to know which way is up. It was originally known as ATTITUDE Instrument Flying. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 hour ago, BrendAn said: that video i posted shows how easy that pilot and his family could have lived. he just made bad decisions until it was too late. all these videos suggest switch to autopilot if equipped because it does not care if its in clouds but the pilot believed it was u/s because he had not learn't how to use it. he could have turned back early as well. he accepted an imc route when he wasn't rated for it. so many mistakes . Part 2 of the problem is if you switch to autopilot you will smack into a granite cliff, because IFR requires flight planning to avoid this possibility. There's no easy way out without the training and currency requited. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted May 14 Author Share Posted May 14 1 hour ago, turboplanner said: Part 2 of the problem is if you switch to autopilot you will smack into a granite cliff, because IFR requires flight planning to avoid this possibility. There's no easy way out without the training and currency requited. good point but in this case he was on radar and they would have alerted him to set a climb to safe altitude if he wasn't already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 I had a horrible incident as a right seat passenger in a A36 Bonanza 42 years ago, the VFR Pilot (my boss at the time) A weather front came up enroute to Archerfield from Rockhampton. We got to Gayndah and I figured he would land there, no he wanted to keep going, I said make left turn, me being the pseudo navigator with a fist full of charts and not even half a clue at what I was doing . We go to the coast…….we got there with cloud down to 700ft. I said turn right at the beach and keep the sand on the right and the water on the left. He was visibly worried and I could honestly see it ending horribly bad. He ended up calling at Maroochydore on the radio and we were down to 600ft 🤢 He made a raggy landing because he was badly stressed. I will never forget that day, ever. We got a ride to Brisbane, I picked up a new Merc 2224 prime mover and drove home. Th Boss got grounded there for 3 days and I believe he got roasted for making the flight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted May 14 Author Share Posted May 14 2 minutes ago, jackc said: I had a horrible incident as a right seat passenger in a A36 Bonanza 42 years ago, the VFR Pilot (my boss at the time) A weather front came up enroute to Archerfield from Rockhampton. We got to Gayndah and I figured he would land there, no he wanted to keep going, I said make left turn, me being the pseudo navigator with a fist full of charts and not even half a clue at what I was doing . We go to the coast…….we got there with cloud down to 700ft. I said turn right at the beach and keep the sand on the right and the water on the left. He was visibly worried and I could honestly see it ending horribly bad. He ended up calling at Maroochydore on the radio and we were down to 600ft 🤢 He made a raggy landing because he was badly stressed. I will never forget that day, ever. We got a ride to Brisbane, I picked up a new Merc 2224 prime mover and drove home. Th Boss got grounded there for 3 days and I believe he got roasted for making the flight. probably had to get his laundry done while he was grounded too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 I told one of his relatives, he will die in a plane crash one day 🤢 I do know he bought some kind of rocket ship from the U.S. 20 years ago, something like $3mil, and ferried it back to Sydney. Have not seen him for years, believe he owns a heap of car dealerships in Sydney. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 You had a bit of luck riding with you. It used to be called "scud" running. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 2 hours ago, facthunter said: If you've done much Instrument flying you wouldn't need me to tell you what's wrong with the "technique" bit. Limited Panel is difficult and also tiring. You need at least one gyro instrument. If you have a good Full panel the artificial horizon makes it relatively simple to know which way is up. It was originally known as ATTITUDE Instrument Flying. Nev And since I've done none (like most here) I remain keen for tips and insights from them what have. I don't believe VFR >> IMC crashes always and only happen to folks far less savvy, wise and law abiding than myself. I'm probably asking too much but I sort of hoped you (and/or other pros) might compare and contrast those two competing IMC escape methods I referenced above: the immediate 180 degree escape versus the straight ahead climb [no turns] method. (It's clear, of course, there ain't no guarantees one way or t'other.) Anyway, Nev, don't complain that no one asks questions any more. ;- ) Edited May 14 by Garfly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 IF you cared to read what I've posted over many years, you would be aware of my consistent approach to this topic. Your last line is a CHEAP shot unworthy of you. The Part of my post you quoted WAS information that I hoped would be useful. You could have built on that. OR ASKED A QUESTION .... of me if that's what you actually wanted. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 What!!?? You can't take a gentle jibe!!!?? That sir, is unworthy of you!! You know I have 'cared to read' most what you've posted over many years. I don't remember it all! Okay?? Sheesh, talk about a cranky old men's club!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 I don't come here for the amusement of you to be shot down in flames for fun. Your last response is not helpful either. This place is a hostile environment for SERIOUS discussion and there couldn't be anything much more serious than the subject we are discussing. Just realise what you are doing. Most like me have left.. There's a time for humour but it's NOT all the time. You know I'm a safety nut above all else. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 Nobody here is not a safety nut above all else. Seeya later! 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