Garfly

But this is about suddenly, inadvertently entering IMC, barely trained, unprepared. I'd say NOT "trying to use instruments" (calmly, methodically as in kgwilson's tale) would certainly be asking for a problem.

Yeah, and I'm guessing that was the thinking behind the Cessna POH (as per OP). So, short of panic, a better idea than hands-off the yoke seems to be what you did. And yes, some refresher hood-time sounds good - especially if it happens to includes some supervised real IMC.

Here is the follow-up film: touring around: Oz

Fair enough, and I'm all for thread drift but this was the OP's question in respect of that YT Comment about the Cessna method. "recent Dan Gryder Utube video; A post / comment by an instructor; interesting technique when in IMC by mistake / error or terror - no hands on yoke - just use your rudder for turns ........... for anyone to comment" It's just that your rhetorical question suggests that the rest of us might have totally missed the point that not all aircraft are equal.

Of course not. But we ARE talking about Cessnas and Cessna POHs in this thread.

Well they must be taught the same in the US, given it's the whole point of the YT Comment in the OP: 've always taught ... the technique described by all Cessna operating handbooks for an emergency entry into the clouds ... maintain your heading (and wings level) with your feet/rudders only Okay, a more fullsome exposition of the thread title. What superseded rules are you talking about? In any case, you ought to know we must still stay 1000' feet from cloud vertically and 1500m. horizontally between 3,000' and 10,000' when above 1000' AGL. But yes, you're right. In Australia, inadvertent entry into IMC by VFR pilots remains illegal. And the liability is strict.

Thanks, A-51 for taking the effort to engage with the ideas. I can well imagine the scene of confusion and disorientation you describe. I totally believe it without needing to experience it. But it leaves me to guess that that classic 'hands-off' strategy was invented after they figured that no more chaos would likely ensue compared to "hands-on" methods; and that, with a bit of luck, you'd have a better shot at a happy outcome. Anyway, the idea still seems to persist, for example, as the takeaway from the "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!!! I'm gonna crash!!!" story. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnb4qCfp0mo ] Of course, the secondary effect of rudder being roll was the whole point of the "Cessna" method as outlined in the OP YT Comment. The hope seems to have been that a panicked VFR pilot is more likely to be able to stay wings level using rudder alone - inputs just sufficient to prevent turning in the first place. They must have concluded that 'hands-off the yoke' was the only way to prevent the panic pull that'd end in a stall/spin. Game over even quicker, even surer. Still no Mars Bars. But anyway, my own sense of the safest thing to do for VFR pilots caught out is, pretty much as you say "wings level, straight ahead, cruise climb attitude, etc". Which is why I've never felt comfortable with the often suggested immediate 180 turnback. Indeed "Things go more wrong when turns are brought into the imc scenario."

But which idea, exactly, are you saying is BS? Nobody on here - or even the benighted YT Commenter - suggests anything to contradict "If you have no turn coordinator altimeter vsi or appropriate training there's a fantastic chance nobody in the aircraft will be arriving home" Almost everyone in aviation holds to that idea; a truism. That being the case, no one really needs to be marched off to an X-Plane sim to "see what happens" (even absent panic and spatial disorientation). The instructor quoted in the YouTube comment (in the OP) said this: 've always taught all of my students how to maintain control of the aircraft in IMC by performing the technique described by all Cessna operating handbooks for an emergency entry into the clouds. First, lower your power setting and re-trim. Next, and most important, keep your right hand on the throttle and LET GO OF THE YOKE and put your left hand in you lap. Until you're VMC again and can see, maintain your heading (and wings level) with your feet/rudders only. Any turns required are done with your feet only. If you require a climb or descent, it can be done by adding / reducing power only. You'll never lose control of the airplane like this. Get on the radio and declare an emergency and get help to find VFR weather. So I for one (zero actual IMC/IFR) would be very open to hearing from those who know, about the problems with this long taught technique (for Cessna trainers, at least). But, to be useful, it would have to offer an alternate method working from the same scenario. That is: sudden inadvertent IMC; pilot with little/no experience in cloud; typical (Cessna) six-pack still working (IMC only just entered) and predictable Human Factors (like the urge to pull to save oneself) likely taking hold. Under those conditions what might a non-BS idea look like; a better long-shot on a sticky wicket than the one Cessna proposed for years. BTW, was it not ATC's "hands-off" advice to the pilot in the famous "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! I'm gonna crash!!!" affair, that was credited with saving his life. FWIW there's an interesting review of that incident (and VFR>>IMC generally) in this video by airline pilot "74 Gear" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnb4qCfp0mo But for those with no time to waste gazing at the GoogTube (Red!!! I'm lookin' at you! ; -) you'll get the gist in less than a minute here: 20:23 >> 21:00

Yes, I do ... with the same amount of discernment that I read comments on internet forums. To dismiss all is as foolish as to accept all.

I think the technique described (in the OP) implies having a working AH and DG. Partial panel would take the crisis to another level. But yes, worth testing oneself out on, under qualified supervision. IMHO, the method does have the benefit of simplicity - which may be key when panic threatens.

It was super generous of this young pilot to share the excruciating experience of his first flight with a pax. Things didn't go as planned. But a great lesson for aviators all. Who hasn't, at some point, found themselves confused by unexpected panel layouts (even in familiar types)? Anyway, our brand new PIC solves a sticky situation by aviating, navigating and ... well, wing-wiggling to a green-light landing into Bankstown. In his later vids we see that he's gone on to grow in confidence and competence and to nail his commercial ticket. (And we see that he's a true believer in the joy of flight.) Apart from anything else, the GoPro video is an enthralling little human drama. Who couldn't identify with and feel for these characters?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-11/AO-2023-042 Final.pdf "In-flight upset involving Boeing 737-8FE, VH-YQR 143 km west of Ballina/Byron Gateway Airport, New South Wales on 6 September 2023" ATSB Transport Safety Report Aviation Occurrence Investigation (Short) AO-2023-042 Final – 29 November 2024 EXCERPT: "On the initial application of the rudder trim, both pilots felt the aircraft’s immediate yaw/roll response, but were unable to identify the likely cause. Over the following 5 seconds, while the captain maintained activation of the switch and waited for the door to open, the rudder trim progressively increased to the left, causing the rudder to correspondingly move to the left. The autopilot was initially able to compensate for the increasing left yaw input and induced left roll through application of increasing right wing down roll input. This right wing down input was replicated on the pilots’ control wheel. After 5 seconds of trim input and increasing induced left roll, the autopilot reached its authority limit – that is, the autopilot had reached the maximum roll control input it could apply and maintain. Up to this point, the autopilot had managed to limit the induced roll to a bank angle of less than 5° to the left. However, on reaching the roll authority limit, the increasing rudder trim resulted in the aircraft’s bank angle to the left increasing. As the trim input continued for a further 3 seconds, the aircraft responded with a rapidly increasing rate of roll to the left. The unexpected and increasing bank angle alerted both pilots to the developing aircraft upset. The PF initially responded by attempting to control the increasing left roll through the use of the mode control panel heading selections and the autopilot. As this had no apparent effect, and with the bank angle continuing to increase, the PF applied a large right wing down control input while almost simultaneously disengaged the autopilot and autothrottle. At about the same time the bank angle alert triggered. The PM responded with an ‘upset’ call, and the PF responded by executing the upset recovery procedure. The aircraft was quickly recovered to about straight and level flight. Having recovered the aircraft to an approximate wings level attitude, the PF was required to hold about 35° of right wing down control wheel displacement to maintain that attitude. While this large roll input required to maintain a wings level attitude strongly indicated a yaw-related issue, the crew continued to investigate the cause of the inflight upset unsuccessfully for a further minute. About 70 seconds after the initial misapplication of rudder trim, the PF requested the PM check the rudder trim. Shortly after, the rudder trim was returned to a neutral position. While large right wing down aileron input required to maintain a wings level attitude provided a strong indicator that the upset was linked to a yaw related issue, a combination of the very small displacement of the rudder pedals at the point of maximum trim application, and the PF’s limited experience on the aircraft, probably contributed to some of the delay in identifying the unintended rudder trim."

A handy reminder to pay heed to the switches we flick till they're well and truly flicked.

Juan's update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mAUks0krI

A new dead-stick, failed forced landing analysis from Scott Perdue:

Some good insights here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKJklQRyKxo

A fair question, although those aren't the only two reasons folks have for saying stuff. Anyway, I'd say my opinion is based on long familiarity with the format of the piece; a well worn (but still effective) template in the misinformation industry. (Not all those brothers-in-law are likely legit. And the oddly inserted theory about this bro's demise 45 years ago, sort of lets the cat out of the bag: "He was killed in a military C-12 plane crash when escaping Iran. I believe his transport was shot down. If so, it was covered up by the Carter Administration to avoid fanning the flames of war, but that is another issue." Another issue!! If so!! ) But meanwhile, back at now; in fact, the identity of the third crew member is, at this time, still being withheld by the family and the US Army. And for good reason: 'Illinois Democrat Sen. Tammy Duckworth, herself a decorated former Black Hawk pilot, told NPR she understood why the family declined to make their loved-one's name public. " We should be respecting the family's wishes at a time when they have suffered an unbelievable loss," Duckworth said. "I think it is a perfectly legitimate request the family would make. And I'm glad that the Army is honoring that request." Duckworth condemned the online speculation about the third member of the crew and especially President Trump's musings that the Army crew was to blame or was affected by diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring. "Every one of those troops that was in that aircraft earned their place there, and they are the most highly trained military aviators in the world," Duckworth said. "And I am just sick to my stomach that we would have a president who would say such things about the heroic men and women who serve every single day." ' Source: Army withholds name of Black Hawk helicopter crew in D.C. crash, 2 others identified WWW.NPR.ORG At the request of the family, the Army is not going to release the name of the female member of the Black Hawk crew killed in Wednesday's crash. The withholding of the name is a highly unusual move. By the way, this site Unreported Truths seems to be one of the sources of the chain email above A military and civilian aviation veteran explains Wednesday night's crash ALEXBERENSON.SUBSTACK.COM Several pilots wrote in - I thank you all. I found this explanation both admirably complete and largely apolitical, and I think you will too. If you scroll to the bottom of the page you'll see what else exercises them right now: Vaccinated English adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people the same age And have been for six months. This chart may seem unbelievable or impossible, but it's correct, based on weekly data from the British government. Nov 21, 2021 • Alex Berenson 2,100 697 URGENT: Covid vaccines will keep you from acquiring full immunity EVEN IF YOU ARE INFECTED AND RECOVER Don’t take it from me, I don’t even get to tweet anymore. Oct 22, 2021 • Alex Berenson

All the hallmarks of a professional misinfo job - the kind that tends to "show up" in feeds and forums all over. Typically, a collection of true facts and reasoned opinions (from open sources) lends credibility to the actual punch-line, in this case involving "sincere hope". And then the clincher ... the "I know this because" part (which, weirdly, often involves a brother-in-law in the know).

Okay, here's a link to that: Draft guidance on radiotelephony procedures - Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Citizen Space CONSULTATION.CASA.GOV.AU Find and participate in consultations run by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Draft Multi-Part AC 64.B-01, AC 91-35, AC 139-14 and AC 172-04 v1

Simples? But there's no suggestion of any either/or scenarios in the video. The commentary names both as "certain criteria" that must be met. (Not either one criterion or another). "You must not continue approach to land beyond the threshold of the runway until you meet certain criteria. These are: • An aircraft that is taking off from the same runway must have become airborne and commenced a turn. • An aircraft that is taking off from the same runway must be beyond the point at which your aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll." But, in any case, even if we put it down to clumsy language/video production, how is this of any guidance in the real world? Taking your first scenario - an aircraft that's already taken off, climbed to 500' and turned crosswind then clearly it's no factor. It's everyday circuit work. As to your climbing straight ahead case, at most uncontrolled strips you'd be clearing the far end before turning anyway so that scenario only counts if, turning final, you felt compelled to apply the video's first criterion strictly. (No turn, no land!) But then, looking at the wording of the second of the two criteria, it seems it doesn't even require the aircraft ahead to be airborne in its take-off run - just so long as you reckon you can pull up in time if, say, he suddenly aborts. To me it doesn't look simple at all. It looks like a super stringent rule running concurrently with a really quite liberal one - applied to the same scenario. Take your pick?

I've been checking out the recent CASA video series "Explaining the rules". Some are sort of useful but this one "Landing Rules at non-controlled aerodromes" has me confused. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EkQagUcwNY&list=PLjm7k4QRw7_spKGYzGOkxBwrWiaDr-srd&index=5 In it, these two slides are shown, one after another. Am I missing something? How is it that these two "explanations" both apply? It's not like there's an "and/or" involved (but even if there was ...??). Anyway, if version 1 wins out, what happens when the aircraft ahead departs upwind?