Jump to content

flying into ifr without training, sad outcome.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

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.

This reminds me of the person who told us that on the way home from Natfly the weather was so bad he had to fly his Jab on instruments.

This is not the US.

Edited by turboplanner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

This reminds me of the person who told us that on the way home from Natfly the weather was so bad he had to fly his Jab on instruments.

This is not the US.

the video was in the usa and he was in contact with atc. what has that got to do with a jabiru in australia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

the video was in the usa and he was in contact with atc. what has that got to do with a jabiru in australia. 

The comments are being made in Australia where legal pilots will be 5 km away from this.

 

I wonder what Dick would think about some of these comments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The comments are being made in Australia where legal pilots will be 5 km away from this.

 

I wonder what Dick would think about some of these comments.

 

do you talk in some sort of cryptic turbo code, i have no idea what you are talking about. why does it have to be so hard to post a video i thought was informative.

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

You had a bit of luck riding with you. It used to be called "scud" running.  Nev

I would never make Commercial Pilot, if I did not like weather on the day, I would say this 747 ain’t going anywhere and I would be fired in a heartbeat.  On any given day, I don’t have to fly anywhere if I don’t have most things in my favour, but having said that, I make the risk assessment even IF it was a string bag Part 103 machine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is truely amazing... The story is just shockingly tragic. It could of still ended much much worse with the aircraft impacting a facility packed full of other souls. Tragic all the same.


Point 1 - PIC demonstrated appalling situational awareness

 

End of Story

 

Point 2 - PIC demonstrated appalling understanding of personal minimums

 

End of Story

 

Point 3 - PIC demonstrated appalling ability to admit being overwhelmed and request available assistance 

 

End of Story

 

Point 4 - Its a great video, can't think of anything else to add except see Point 1 above

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sucker hole may have been the turbocharger, without that the dubious plan to try and fly over the weather would have been off the table from the start.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BrendAn said:

do you talk in some sort of cryptic turbo code, i have no idea what you are talking about. why does it have to be so hard to post a video i thought was informative.

Referring to the OP comments:

"There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed  in this  PoA [Pilots of America] forum" Garfly.

 

How hard is it to understand that in Australia, if you have the situational awareness that some people have referred to, and you are flying legally, the cloud you see will be at least 5 kilometres away, so none of the 178 seconds video will apply and none of the comments will apply.

 

If you choose to break that rule and go up closer to "have a look" you've crossed over into IMC which is prohibited area.

 

The 178 seconds story was originally introduced in written form when the VRF rules specified only 500 ft clearance below cloud; you could legally fly at 1,000 ft cloud base - 500 ft below the cloud and 500 ft above ground.

 

The 178 seconds was never intended as a specific doomsday event; it was just a sample of one incident and used as a catchy headline.

It was published in Aviation Safety Digest in Australia.

 

Subsequently, in Australia, PPL training introduced a model of two hours flying blind where the pilot was trained to scan the key instruments over and over again while flying blind. It was not designed to teach a pilot how to fly in IMC, it was to teach him how easy it was, even with no stress, and no bad weather, for the aircraft to get away from him.

 

We still lost a crop of pilots every year, and the ATSB reports usually showed they were pilots who practised scud running, and some had even flown for short distances in IMC. The split was roughly 5 total loss of controls to 1 collision with a hill or trees.

 

Over the years I've tried to start about four "Weather" threads to show people the importance of understanding Meteorology, and the NAIPS system which provides flying-based forecasts. Each one has petered out after the few Met experienced pilots had had their say. 

We've never managed to come up with a clear assistance to show which clouds or weather pattern is going to close in on you and which is going to open up, or how you navigate through multiple weather patterns.  Sometimes the discussions drift along with references to  a favourite weathers ource, ignorant that those sources are not providing aviation support, just what the general population and farmers need.

 

A good example of the shortcoming of the supposed "Modern" system was the death of an RA pilot who took off into what was forecast by NAIPS as Severe Turbulence - a warning to stay on the ground. Sure enough within minutes of taking off his aircraft broke up.

 

NAIPS (National Aeronautical Information Processing System) is part of Airservices Australia.

 

Perhaps there should be a Met Module in RA Training. Perhaps RA pilots need to step in and focus on this aspect of flying.

 

The 5 km visibility rule in Australia was introduced and provided a much better guide to the pilot of the No Go point, giving him plenty of time to turn around and go home, or at least make a Precautionary Landing in a calm manner. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

if you have the situational awareness that some people have referred to, and you are flying legally, the cloud you see will be at least 5 kilometres away

If the 5km applies to distance from cloud, how do you explain the requirements to be 1000m horizontally from cloud above 3000', or clear of could below 3000' / 1000' AGL? Wouldn't they be redundant?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, aro said:

If the 5km applies to distance from cloud, how do you explain the requirements to be 1000m horizontally from cloud above 3000', or clear of could below 3000' / 1000' AGL? Wouldn't they be redundant?

5000 regards visibility not minimum distance from cloud. These aspects are provided for by NAIPS in a TAF 

Edited by Area-51
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, aro said:

If the 5km applies to distance from cloud, how do you explain the requirements to be 1000m horizontally from cloud above 3000', or clear of could below 3000' / 1000' AGL? Wouldn't they be redundant?

I posted the VFRG  distance diagramme on the previous page.   Note that based on altitude the visibility requirement extends to 8 km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I posted the VFRG  distance diagramme on the previous page.   Note that based on altitude the visibility requirement extends to 8 km.

Yes I know, I’m just questioning whether you understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some pilots may have questions regarding the necessity of TAF or TTF... These individuals should understand the opportunity toward peril they create for themselves. 
 

The information presented is there to allow the PIC to make an informed go/nogo decision or possibility of an expected en-route diversion situation.

 

Taking off without consulting a TAF of the closest nearby airfield with one is the beginning of any event occurring.

 

Just because the sky is blue all over from the ground does not mean its all happy days up there...

Edited by Area-51
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

the cloud you see will be at least 5 kilometres away

See the column that says Distance from cloud? It says 1500m horizontal, or Clear of cloud at or below 3000 AMSL or 1000 AGL - not 5km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, aro said:

See the column that says Distance from cloud? It says 1500m horizontal, or Clear of cloud at or below 3000 AMSL or 1000 AGL - not 5km.

Here is the diagramme I posted earlier with the distances shown by the figures in the red rectangles.  

 

xVFRG2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we just accept that distance from cloud and visibility are not as defined as they should be ?

Visibility is generally acknowledged to be in the direction of travel.

 

Arguing about this when we all (should) know what is meant is not meaningful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Referring to the OP comments:

"There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed  in this  PoA [Pilots of America] forum" Garfly.

 

How hard is it to understand that in Australia, if you have the situational awareness that some people have referred to, and you are flying legally, the cloud you see will be at least 5 kilometres away, so none of the 178 seconds video will apply and none of the comments will apply.

 

If you choose to break that rule and go up closer to "have a look" you've crossed over into IMC which is prohibited area.

 

The 178 seconds story was originally introduced in written form when the VRF rules specified only 500 ft clearance below cloud; you could legally fly at 1,000 ft cloud base - 500 ft below the cloud and 500 ft above ground.

 

The 178 seconds was never intended as a specific doomsday event; it was just a sample of one incident and used as a catchy headline.

It was published in Aviation Safety Digest in Australia.

 

Subsequently, in Australia, PPL training introduced a model of two hours flying blind where the pilot was trained to scan the key instruments over and over again while flying blind. It was not designed to teach a pilot how to fly in IMC, it was to teach him how easy it was, even with no stress, and no bad weather, for the aircraft to get away from him.

 

We still lost a crop of pilots every year, and the ATSB reports usually showed they were pilots who practised scud running, and some had even flown for short distances in IMC. The split was roughly 5 total loss of controls to 1 collision with a hill or trees.

 

Over the years I've tried to start about four "Weather" threads to show people the importance of understanding Meteorology, and the NAIPS system which provides flying-based forecasts. Each one has petered out after the few Met experienced pilots had had their say. 

We've never managed to come up with a clear assistance to show which clouds or weather pattern is going to close in on you and which is going to open up, or how you navigate through multiple weather patterns.  Sometimes the discussions drift along with references to  a favourite weathers ource, ignorant that those sources are not providing aviation support, just what the general population and farmers need.

 

A good example of the shortcoming of the supposed "Modern" system was the death of an RA pilot who took off into what was forecast by NAIPS as Severe Turbulence - a warning to stay on the ground. Sure enough within minutes of taking off his aircraft broke up.

 

NAIPS (National Aeronautical Information Processing System) is part of Airservices Australia.

 

Perhaps there should be a Met Module in RA Training. Perhaps RA pilots need to step in and focus on this aspect of flying.

 

The 5 km visibility rule in Australia was introduced and provided a much better guide to the pilot of the No Go point, giving him plenty of time to turn around and go home, or at least make a Precautionary Landing in a calm manner. 

 

 

 

 

 

sorry turbo. i was talking about the video i posted and you are talking about the other one.   i  was the op

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

does anyone besides me find  it odd that when you listen to awis the wind speed is in knots,  the cloud height is in feet and visibility is in kilometers.

instead of going between imperial and metric why isn't there one standard.

Edited by BrendAn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two issues which are summarised by the below.

 

All people make poor decisions at times. Yes try to do better.

 

I'm very interested in the best recovery technique and the pros and cons of the two mentioned below.

 

21 hours ago, Garfly said:

... //  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.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

does anyone besides me find  it odd that when you listen to awis the wind speed is in knots,  the cloud height is in feet and visibility is in kilometers.

instead of going between imperial and metric why isn't there one standard.

There was an explanation at the time of the Metric Conversion Board, and it was logical (can remember where it would be filed today.

I think the distance may relate to ICAO, and it may be that's where we are going, but I haven's looked for anything on that.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall it having anything to do with metric conversion. 1,000 feet is a good sized vertical distance separation. THAT makes other units clumsy. Nautical miles relates to Knots easily and distances in metres.. Russia uses Metres for height..  Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Here is the diagramme I posted earlier with the distances shown by the figures in the red rectangles.

Try again - the word you are looking for is "cloud".

 

Visibility is how far away you can see things you don't want to fly into - clouds, mountains etc. Clouds are - well, clouds.

 

If visibility is 5000m you can't even see a cloud until it is closer than 5000m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...