From crwdog69@hotmail.com Tue Dec 11 19:04:32 2001
Path: cygnus.com!enews.sgi.com!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: crwdog69@hotmail.com (Michael)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Flying In The Clouds
Date: 11 Dec 2001 15:15:50 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <449a3d6e.0112111515.734c9c1d@posting.google.com>
References: <svTQ7.21918$wL4.50831@rwcrnsc51> <_3VQ7.22359$wL4.55546@rwcrnsc51> <wyVQ7.24983$ER5.307983@rwcrnsc52> <u18c755po2u2cc@corp.supernews.com> <917fe384.0112101438.1d48ef68@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.149.180.194
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1008112550 7793 127.0.0.1 (11 Dec 2001 23:15:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Dec 2001 23:15:50 GMT
Xref: cygnus.com rec.aviation.student:196992

awnews@electradigital.com (Alex Weeks) wrote 
> At an AOPA safety seminar I heard that a significant number of the
> pilots who continue VFR into IMC and have trouble are actually
> instrument rated pilots but not on instrument flight plans.

Last I heard, they were the majority as of a couple of years ago. 
This is particularly disturbing since most of them were private
pilots, and less than 20% of private pilots are instrument rated in
the first place.  One might even be tempted to believe that having an
instrument rating puts you at higher risk of dying in an inadvertent
VFR-into-IMC incident.  I will attempt to explain why I believe this
is absolutely true.

> So that makes it even harder to figure out why they get into trouble.

No, I think it helps explain the situation much better.

Let's face facts - basic attitude instrument flying proficiency has
been required at the private pilot level for well over a decade now. 
A few years ago the FAA started mandating three hours of instrument
training.  Before that, it was possible to go to a private checkride
with as little as one hour of instrument time (I did) but the
maneuvers you had to demonstrate were exactly the same - climbs,
descents, turns to headings, and unusual attitude recoveries.  In a
RADAR environment, these skills are sufficient to save your ass and
get you down even in some really scuzzy conditions if you do what you
are supposed to - climb, communicate, confess, and comply.  I know
this from personal experience, because I once had to do it.  At the
time, I had less than three hours of total instrument time, was low
time, and was not very current or experienced in the airplane I was
flying.  I did not even know what an ASR was, but I asked for a RADAR
guided approach and I got one.

I believe that the key to surviving the experience is realizing that
you indeed have an emergency situation, staying calm, and carrying out
your plan of action for the emergency.  If you do that, you will most
likely (but not certainly) come out alive.

If you ask around, very few pilots out there have not had an
inadvertent VFR into IMC encounter.  The vast majority of those who
have one do survive, by using the skills they were taught in
preparation for the private pilot checkride.  Some few even become
comfortable with the process and start flying IMC whenever it is
convenient.

Recently, I asked a few of the high time instrument rated pilots
around my home field about their instrument experiences prior to
obtaining the instrument rating.  The consensus seems to be that 2-6
hours of solo actual is typical before STARTING work on the instrument
rating.  There's a lot of IMC flying by unrated people going on out
there.  Some are just punching layers to get up or down, and some have
actully graduated all the way up to filing IFR illegally and flying
full approaches.  While this is grossly illegal, I don't think this is
what really causes the accidents.  These people know that they are
doing something illegal and dangerous, and they treat the operation
with all the respect it deserves.

The reality is that an instrument rating does not really prepare the
average pilot for the sort of instrument flying he really wants to do.
 How many of us know an instrument rated pilot (or a pilot working on
an instrument rating) who owns a light single (or typically rents
light singles) and just wants the rating as a 'safety net?'  I see a
lot of these guys.  They fly less than 100 hours a year, they mostly
fly VFR, and unless they have a real reason to go somewhere (which
they rarely do) they don't intentionally fly in scuzzy weather.  Their
thinking is that if they are flying along and the weather goes bad,
they can just file IFR to get down and out of the weather.  I believe
that kind of thinking is going to kill quite a few of them.

See, flying IFR is a hassle, and the less performance your airplane
has, the more of a hassle it is.  Unless you have IFR RNAV (and
sometimes even if you do) you get routed out of your way along
airways.  You lose a lot of time climbing, and because you don't
really get to do a shallow descent a lot of times, you don't get it
back on the descent.  It's not so bad enroute, but it's really bad on
the departure and in the terminal environment.  If your airplane has
short legs and poor climb (and most of the GA fleet does), you can
increase your trip time by 50%.  Flying IFR is fun (in a twisted sort
of way) if you can cruise 150+ kts, carry 5+ hours of fuel, and climb
1000 fpm.  Otherwise it's just a pain in the ass.  As a result, most
instrument rated private pilots are actually flying very little actual
- and most of their instrument time is in the training environment.

Unfortunately, the training environment is rather unrealistic.  Real
IFR flying involves very little actual airmanship most of the time. 
You plod along, mostly straight and level, in and out of the soup for
three hours, and at the end you maybe get one approach out of it (if
that).  Most of what you are doing is monitoring weather and systems. 
Mostly navigation is just not a major concern - you have multiple
redundant systems and aids to situational awareness.  Sure, you CAN
fly with just a single Nav/Com, but outside the training environment
nobody does.  In the training environment, you spend so much time
flying with just the bare minimum that you can easily begin to think
that's normal.

So here we have our statistic waiting to happen.  He is in your
average minimally equipped airplane, which means he has maybe a couple
of NavComs (or just one) and maybe an ADF, and probably a decent
portable GPS with a yoke mount.  If he is a renter he might be in the
instrument trainer, which probably has DME, but probably doesn't have
a decent mount for the GPS.  He is instrument rated and technically
current - he just had an ICC three months ago.  He has an ICC every
six months - it's cheap insurance.  He is making a routine VFR XC
flight.  The weather shows a chance of marginal VFR, and even a remote
chance of patchy IFR, but mostly it's supposed to be decent enough
VFR.  Our friend even filed an IFR flight plan, just in case.  He has
a book of approach plates and a low altitude chart in the back seat. 
The weather is deteriorating, but he is undeterred.  It is still
technically VFR, and anyway he has a flight plan on file, he is legal
and current.  He knows all about air filing - he did it a couple of
times while working on his rating, on a clear blue sky day.

Now the weather has gotten marginal.  He contacts center, but everyone
else wants to talk to them too.  On a blue sky VFR day, center is
mostly handling the turbine traffic.  Everyone else is VFR.  Now the
weather is deteriorating, and the system is full of guys in Bonanzas,
210's, and Barons who all filed 20 minutes ago.  The controllers are
talking a mile a minute and our friend can't get a word in edgewise. 
When the controller finally acknowledges him, he tells the guy to file
with FSS - he can't find the flight plan.  See, it was never opened on
takeoff and it's with a different center.

Now our friend has his hands full.  He's hand flying the airplane in
scuzzy weather, fumbling for maps, trying to find the right frequency,
tuning radios, and pretty soon he's in the soup.  He should now
declare an emergency (because that is exactly what he has on his
hands) but he is instrument rated and current and he knows that
declaring an emergency now might mean a violation and a 609, but if he
only files normally and flies his clearance all will be fine.  In the
meantime, he lets his scan slip.  He notices that all of a sudden, the
airspeed is way too high and the descent rate is way too low, or worse
that tower comes out of the mist...

My experience is that the most difficult part of the IFR in IMC flight
is the transition to instruments, not the approach.  Approaches are
standardized, they are charted, and the portion flown past the final
approach fix is absolutely invariant.  Instrument departures are worse
- you are maneuvering down low, with the airplane not squared away
yet.  But by far the most difficult kind of instrument flying is
making the transition from VFR to IFR in scuzzy weather in an
unplanned manner.  I'm not saying it can't be done, and I certainly
have done it, but these are the times when my workload is highest. 
This is also something that is not evaluated on the instrument
checkride in any realistic way, and as a result most instrument
instructors do not teach it.

Sometimes the most comforting words you can hear are "Cleared to ABC
via..., descend and maintain 5000, fly heading 200 direct XYZ when
able."  I have had experiences where it took 20 minutes from when I
first contacted ATC to the time I heard those magic words.  The
weather can deteriorate A LOT in 20 minutes.  Some people just don't
live long enough.

Unfortunately, the instrument rating is now being recommended to
everyone for the sake of safety.  I suspect that when it comes to the
VFR-into-IMC fatality statistics, this is doing more harm than good. 
There was a time when scud running was considered a skill, and the
realistic way to get to an airport in a 100 mph airplane when weather
deteriorated.  Instrument flying in a 100 mph airplane was considered
insanity.  Today scud running is considered insanity, and instrument
flying is considered a reasonable way to get to an airport when
weather deteriorates.  I don't think this is progress.

Michael


