Inadvertant IMC - DG1000, Manawatu, New Zealand

[Andy Mackay]

Nothing to add, but danger close

https://youtu.be/TH7UXgT4Txs

[2G]

On Saturday, November 21, 2020 at 2:59:28 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Nothing to add, but danger close
>
> https://youtu.be/TH7UXgT4Txs

These guys were in violation of NZ's cloud separation rules from the get-go, and the instructor was curiously behind the curve during the whole flight.. They are very lucky to have survived. The narrator touched on what equipment and training would be required for them to be legally where they were at any point in the video, and they had none of that (it was not made known if the instructor had the cloud flying training - if so he should not permitted the student to get them into that position).

This is confirmation of my position that gliders involved in ridge (in the close vicinity of clouds) or wave flight should have an artificial horizon and the pilot must be trained in its use. I have gotten trapped above the clouds on a wave flight and had to make a 7,000 ft descent thru the clouds w/o any instruments other than the basic ones and certainly no training in instrument flight. I did it by flying a constant compass heading at a constant speed, making minimal control movements. At the time, artificial horizons were large, power hungry devices and never used in gliders. Now, they are small (at least some of them) and energy efficient. The easiest way to get instrument training is in a conventional power plane, and the most realistic time to do it is a moonless or cloud covered night away from any city lights.

Tom

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 6:36:29 AM UTC+13, 2G wrote:


> These guys were in violation of NZ's cloud separation rules from the get-go, and the instructor was curiously behind the curve during the whole flight. They are very lucky to have survived. The narrator touched on what equipment and training would be required for them to be legally where they were at any point in the video, and they had none of that (it was not made known if the instructor had the cloud flying training - if so he should not permitted the student to get them into that position).

No argument there.

> This is confirmation of my position that gliders involved in ridge (in the close vicinity of clouds) or wave flight should have an artificial horizon and the pilot must be trained in its use. I have gotten trapped above the clouds on a wave flight and had to make a 7,000 ft descent thru the clouds w/o any instruments other than the basic ones and certainly no training in instrument flight. I did it by flying a constant compass heading at a constant speed, making minimal control movements. At the time, artificial horizons were large, power hungry devices and never used in gliders. Now, they are small (at least some of them) and energy efficient. The easiest way to get instrument training is in a conventional power plane, and the most realistic time to do it is a moonless or cloud covered night away from any city lights.

I've heard this view from a number of pilots. I disagree.

In the case in the video they where only just over 1,000ft clear of the top of the hill they were soaring. Are you suggesting they deliberately enter cloud that close to terrain? On a day windy enough to ridge soar?

Or are you suggesting that after they inadvertently enter cloud they fire up the instruments, change mental gear, and soar clear.

I'd suggest that the more realistic option is to know the conditions, always stay clear of the cloud, always have a clear escape route.

Your instrument flying skill learnt in smooth air several years ago and not kept current by regular refresh will be unlikely to save you in a high pressure situation where you must do the right thing right now in high winds and likely turbulence.

--
Phil Plane
(Only caught above cloud a few times and always amazed we don't see more serious cloud related accidents. Those gaps disappear quickly and cloud can be sneaky)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 11/22/2020 10:40 AM:
> On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 6:36:29 AM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
>
>
>> These guys were in violation of NZ's cloud separation rules from the get-go, and the instructor was curiously behind the curve during the whole flight. They are very lucky to have survived. The narrator touched on what equipment and training would be required for them to be legally where they were at any point in the video, and they had none of that (it was not made known if the instructor had the cloud flying training - if so he should not permitted the student to get them into that position).
>
> No argument there.
>
>> This is confirmation of my position that gliders involved in ridge (in the close vicinity of clouds) or wave flight should have an artificial horizon and the pilot must be trained in its use. I have gotten trapped above the clouds on a wave flight and had to make a 7,000 ft descent thru the clouds w/o any instruments other than the basic ones and certainly no training in instrument flight. I did it by flying a constant compass heading at a constant speed, making minimal control movements. At the time, artificial horizons were large, power hungry devices and never used in gliders. Now, they are small (at least some of them) and energy efficient. The easiest way to get instrument training is in a conventional power plane, and the most realistic time to do it is a moonless or cloud covered night away from any city lights.
>
> I've heard this view from a number of pilots. I disagree.
>
> In the case in the video they where only just over 1,000ft clear of the top of the hill they were soaring. Are you suggesting they deliberately enter cloud that close to terrain? On a day windy enough to ridge soar?
>
> Or are you suggesting that after they inadvertently enter cloud they fire up the instruments, change mental gear, and soar clear.
>
> I'd suggest that the more realistic option is to know the conditions, always stay clear of the cloud, always have a clear escape route.
>
> Your instrument flying skill learnt in smooth air several years ago and not kept current by regular refresh will be unlikely to save you in a high pressure situation where you must do the right thing right now in high winds and likely turbulence.
>
> --
> Phil Plane
> (Only caught above cloud a few times and always amazed we don't see more serious cloud related accidents. Those gaps disappear quickly and cloud can be sneaky)
>
I was astounded at how casually they flew beside clouds when they had so little ground
clearance! I would never do that while ridge soaring. The times I've been in wave with clouds
below, there was always 6000'+ or so ground clearance, often even well downwind, and I've
routinely carried a 57mm T&B to help me descend through the clouds - just in case. Never needed
it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[2G]

On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 10:40:10 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 6:36:29 AM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
>
>
> > These guys were in violation of NZ's cloud separation rules from the get-go, and the instructor was curiously behind the curve during the whole flight. They are very lucky to have survived. The narrator touched on what equipment and training would be required for them to be legally where they were at any point in the video, and they had none of that (it was not made known if the instructor had the cloud flying training - if so he should not permitted the student to get them into that position).
> No argument there.
> > This is confirmation of my position that gliders involved in ridge (in the close vicinity of clouds) or wave flight should have an artificial horizon and the pilot must be trained in its use. I have gotten trapped above the clouds on a wave flight and had to make a 7,000 ft descent thru the clouds w/o any instruments other than the basic ones and certainly no training in instrument flight. I did it by flying a constant compass heading at a constant speed, making minimal control movements. At the time, artificial horizons were large, power hungry devices and never used in gliders. Now, they are small (at least some of them) and energy efficient. The easiest way to get instrument training is in a conventional power plane, and the most realistic time to do it is a moonless or cloud covered night away from any city lights.
> I've heard this view from a number of pilots. I disagree.
>
> In the case in the video they where only just over 1,000ft clear of the top of the hill they were soaring. Are you suggesting they deliberately enter cloud that close to terrain? On a day windy enough to ridge soar?
>
> Or are you suggesting that after they inadvertently enter cloud they fire up the instruments, change mental gear, and soar clear.
>
> I'd suggest that the more realistic option is to know the conditions, always stay clear of the cloud, always have a clear escape route.
>
> Your instrument flying skill learnt in smooth air several years ago and not kept current by regular refresh will be unlikely to save you in a high pressure situation where you must do the right thing right now in high winds and likely turbulence.
>
> --
> Phil Plane
> (Only caught above cloud a few times and always amazed we don't see more serious cloud related accidents. Those gaps disappear quickly and cloud can be sneaky)

If they had followed the specified cloud clearance regs already in place the incident likely would not have occurred. But nobody's perfect and they do make mistakes and find themselves in situations that require this equipment and training (it happened to me). Clouds can form spontaneously, especially during wave flight, so you can be clear of clouds and, then, suddenly find yourself in the clouds. Flying with an artificial horizon is not particularly difficult: you just treat it like a real horizon. It is more of a mental exercise of knowing that your life depends upon that instrument and you must totally trust what it is telling you. How much recurrent training is required depends upon the individual. If you think you need annual refreshers, then by all means get it. The training I got was on a cloud-covered night away from city lights and with a hood for extra measure. The instructor put me into several upset attitudes from which I had to recover solely using instruments. That was one of the best flying lessons I ever had.

I would never recommend intentional cloud flying so close to the terrain, equipped and trained or not (other than in an emergency, which I once had and was glad I had the training to handle it).

Tom

[2G]

On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 2:45:08 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 10:40:10 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 6:36:29 AM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
> >
> >
> > > These guys were in violation of NZ's cloud separation rules from the get-go, and the instructor was curiously behind the curve during the whole flight. They are very lucky to have survived. The narrator touched on what equipment and training would be required for them to be legally where they were at any point in the video, and they had none of that (it was not made known if the instructor had the cloud flying training - if so he should not permitted the student to get them into that position).
> > No argument there.
> > > This is confirmation of my position that gliders involved in ridge (in the close vicinity of clouds) or wave flight should have an artificial horizon and the pilot must be trained in its use. I have gotten trapped above the clouds on a wave flight and had to make a 7,000 ft descent thru the clouds w/o any instruments other than the basic ones and certainly no training in instrument flight. I did it by flying a constant compass heading at a constant speed, making minimal control movements. At the time, artificial horizons were large, power hungry devices and never used in gliders. Now, they are small (at least some of them) and energy efficient. The easiest way to get instrument training is in a conventional power plane, and the most realistic time to do it is a moonless or cloud covered night away from any city lights.
> > I've heard this view from a number of pilots. I disagree.
> >
> > In the case in the video they where only just over 1,000ft clear of the top of the hill they were soaring. Are you suggesting they deliberately enter cloud that close to terrain? On a day windy enough to ridge soar?
> >
> > Or are you suggesting that after they inadvertently enter cloud they fire up the instruments, change mental gear, and soar clear.
> >
> > I'd suggest that the more realistic option is to know the conditions, always stay clear of the cloud, always have a clear escape route.
> >
> > Your instrument flying skill learnt in smooth air several years ago and not kept current by regular refresh will be unlikely to save you in a high pressure situation where you must do the right thing right now in high winds and likely turbulence.
> >
> > --
> > Phil Plane
> > (Only caught above cloud a few times and always amazed we don't see more serious cloud related accidents. Those gaps disappear quickly and cloud can be sneaky)
> If they had followed the specified cloud clearance regs already in place the incident likely would not have occurred. But nobody's perfect and they do make mistakes and find themselves in situations that require this equipment and training (it happened to me). Clouds can form spontaneously, especially during wave flight, so you can be clear of clouds and, then, suddenly find yourself in the clouds. Flying with an artificial horizon is not particularly difficult: you just treat it like a real horizon. It is more of a mental exercise of knowing that your life depends upon that instrument and you must totally trust what it is telling you. How much recurrent training is required depends upon the individual. If you think you need annual refreshers, then by all means get it. The training I got was on a cloud-covered night away from city lights and with a hood for extra measure. The instructor put me into several upset attitudes from which I had to recover solely using instruments. That was one of the best flying lessons I ever had.
>
> I would never recommend intentional cloud flying so close to the terrain, equipped and trained or not (other than in an emergency, which I once had and was glad I had the training to handle it).
>
> Tom

The video has now been blocked from viewing.

Tom

[George Haeh]

Outside controlled airspace, I believe the air regulations in various countries only require "clear of cloud" when below 1000' AGL.

Turning upwind into cloud brings on some navigational challenges, even if you have the instruments and skills.Turning back in cloud to parallel an invisible ridge or try to regain visual in a strong wind before smacking a rock is a crapshoot. Any airway in a mountainous region has a minimum 2000' AGL clearance over terrain.

In defense of the pilots, the camera has a limited view. My impression is that it was severe clear above until sink put them into the soup.

[[email protected]]

This happens more often than you might think.

At a club where I used to fly there is a chief flight instructor who does this on a regular basis. Apparently the entire board of directors at that club is scared ****less to call him out on it. He did it three times with students two of whom are not rated at all in the space of a single day. He's an accident waiting for a chance to happen.

Even with an appropriately equipped and certified aircraft there's a difference between being instrument rated and instrument proficient.

[2G]

On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 4:18:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Outside controlled airspace, I believe the air regulations in various countries only require "clear of cloud" when below 1000' AGL.
>
> Turning upwind into cloud brings on some navigational challenges, even if you have the instruments and skills.Turning back in cloud to parallel an invisible ridge or try to regain visual in a strong wind before smacking a rock is a crapshoot. Any airway in a mountainous region has a minimum 2000' AGL clearance over terrain.
>
> In defense of the pilots, the camera has a limited view. My impression is that it was severe clear above until sink put them into the soup.

Well, it definitely wasn't "severe clear" above them as the video showed clouds well above their altitude. The specific glider cloud clearance regulation is (http://gliding.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MOAP-AL-26.pdf):

104.55 Clearance Below Cloud
Notwithstanding 91.301(a)(2), the pilot of a glider, above an altitude of 3,000 feet and above
a height of 1,000 feet, but below an altitude of 11,000 feet, shall fly no closer than 500 feet
below cloud within Class E or G airspace.
This allows a glider to fly closer to cloud than the 1000 ft otherwise permitted in these
circumstances.

Note that this says BELOW the cloud - there is no regulation for flying ABOVE the cloud in this manual. In the general regulations, the clearance is 1,000 ft when above 3,000 ft MSL (https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/rules/consolidations/Part_091_Consolidation.pdf), which they weren't complying with at any time in the video.

Tom

[Matthew Scutter]

Artifical horizons aren't typically complex instruments requiring a spinup period anymore - I have it on an LX9000 and an AirGlide S only a single knob rotation away at any given time, and whenever I'm even slightly nervous about my situation I put it on the display. The AirGlide S has the airspeed on the display as well, so even an untrained pilot should be able to keep the horizon level and the airspeed roughly constant.

Particularly at the moment, smoke is a real hazard to VFR and it's difficult to predict when thin smoke may become much thicker in the cruise.

It's a shame that they're not more affordable and ubiquitous, but I would be concerned pilots would acclimatize to the protection they offer and end up in cloud more often...

On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 4:40:10 AM UTC+10, wrote:
> On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 6:36:29 AM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
>
>
> > These guys were in violation of NZ's cloud separation rules from the get-go, and the instructor was curiously behind the curve during the whole flight. They are very lucky to have survived. The narrator touched on what equipment and training would be required for them to be legally where they were at any point in the video, and they had none of that (it was not made known if the instructor had the cloud flying training - if so he should not permitted the student to get them into that position).
> No argument there.
> > This is confirmation of my position that gliders involved in ridge (in the close vicinity of clouds) or wave flight should have an artificial horizon and the pilot must be trained in its use. I have gotten trapped above the clouds on a wave flight and had to make a 7,000 ft descent thru the clouds w/o any instruments other than the basic ones and certainly no training in instrument flight. I did it by flying a constant compass heading at a constant speed, making minimal control movements. At the time, artificial horizons were large, power hungry devices and never used in gliders. Now, they are small (at least some of them) and energy efficient. The easiest way to get instrument training is in a conventional power plane, and the most realistic time to do it is a moonless or cloud covered night away from any city lights.
> I've heard this view from a number of pilots. I disagree.
>
> In the case in the video they where only just over 1,000ft clear of the top of the hill they were soaring. Are you suggesting they deliberately enter cloud that close to terrain? On a day windy enough to ridge soar?
>
> Or are you suggesting that after they inadvertently enter cloud they fire up the instruments, change mental gear, and soar clear.
>
> I'd suggest that the more realistic option is to know the conditions, always stay clear of the cloud, always have a clear escape route.
>
> Your instrument flying skill learnt in smooth air several years ago and not kept current by regular refresh will be unlikely to save you in a high pressure situation where you must do the right thing right now in high winds and likely turbulence.
>
> --
> Phil Plane
> (Only caught above cloud a few times and always amazed we don't see more serious cloud related accidents. Those gaps disappear quickly and cloud can be sneaky)

[AS]

Strange, because I thought the commentary was well done and quite educational. The original, unedited video is still up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8djWfNmJlKo

Uli
'AS'

[Andy Mackay[_2_]]

PureGlide reaction video removed at request of Gliding New Zealand pending imminent safety advisory.
A very experienced and qualified instructor on a strong ridge day missed the students initial left turn, combined with loss of SA, IMC entry, over-G recovery for terrain and re-entry into IMC before second recovery and leeward escape to safe outlanding.

[BG[_4_]]

I have flown in similar conditions many times with students. To help the student understand the best position, we pay attention to the clouds and always fly on the upwind side and expect the best lift on the tallest clouds. He flew downwind of just that cloud. Like all ridge soaring, have any exit strategy away and upwind. If you see you re getting boxed in, it is OK to turnaround and fly through the same airmass you just experienced. When there was nothing ahead of them, wishful thinking must have kicked in.

I feel there might be more to learn if the entire GoPro video was shared. Somewhere along the way, the student might have been encouraged to fly this way. There was an accident on the Whites a while back that had these elements, lucky no one was killed in either.

Buzz

[Dan Marotta]

On 11/22/20 6:50 PM, Matthew Scutter wrote:
> so even an untrained pilot should be able to keep the horizon level and the airspeed roughly constant.

If that were the case, there would be a lot fewer fatal VFR into IMC
accidents. Pretty much all power planes have an attitude indicators and
yet they still fall out of the sky when untrained pilots venture into or
get caught in clouds.

--
Dan
5J

[john firth]

On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 1:03:44 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 11/22/20 6:50 PM, Matthew Scutter wrote:
> > so even an untrained pilot should be able to keep the horizon level and the airspeed roughly constant.
> If that were the case, there would be a lot fewer fatal VFR into IMC
> accidents. Pretty much all power planes have an attitude indicators and
> yet they still fall out of the sky when untrained pilots venture into or
> get caught in clouds.
>
> --
> Dan
> 5J
While believing the instruments and controlling appropriately is vital; the difficulty I think,
is in suppressing misleading sensations. I convinced myself to do this on my first
cloud excursion ( in a stable glider with T and S ) and climbed 6000ft. Much later with
a WWII AH, I found it , in RAF parlance, a piece of cake. Add a GPS display and it is easier still.
An engineering training helps understanding what the instrument displays is a help.
I do not think I would have been brave enough to take an ASW 12 ( no brakes) into Cbs
as a team mate did in Yugoslavia, "72.

John Firth ( an old no longer bold pilot.)

[Mike the Strike]

In mid- to high-latitude maritime climates, of which Britain and New Zealand are fine examples, clouds are ubiquitous and cloud base is typically low. You have to fly in, around, above, or below clouds a lot of the time. In these countries, glider pilots are generally permitted to fly in these conditions, including inside clouds if properly instrumented and trained. This is quite different from the USA, particularly my (winter) home in the desert southwest, where regulations require us to stay well clear of clouds and those you encounter are usually two miles above ground at the top of a ten-knot thermal!

Having recently relocated to England (summer), I have had to recalibrate my approach to clouds. Earlier this year, a winch launch deposited me in the bottom wispies of a cumulus cloud (that caught my attention!) and ridge soaring is rarely cloud-free. Staying completely clear of clouds, as required in the USA, is practically impossible. I am slowly getting accustomed to my new damper surroundings, but feel that turn and slip as minimum and full gyro horizon (mechanical or electronic) are essential for safe flying. I am also paying more attention to where ground is, a necessary item as this video shows. Five knots of sink when you're 800 feet above terrrain doesn't give you long to sort things out.

Mike

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

My view of the video seemed much simpler -- and more avionics not really the key answer. They seemed to be running the front of the cloud with an easy out to the right, into the wind. There was a moment with a bit of leftward V shaped notch in the clouds, which they followed downwind. Then it sounds like the instructor got confused, and rather than turn right, follow the V shaped notch back to the right maintaining the path to the valley, they chose to go over the top of the clouds, with building cloud to their right. I was leaning to the right while watching! Clearly this brought them to the lee side of the ridge and a world of trouble. The first and most essential lesson, when flying in such conditions whether ridge or wave, always maintain a clear exit path! For ridge, most likely upwind. For wave, the exit path is often downwind. Perhaps being in the back seat is a tough place to make these decisions too, which require a lot of staring at clouds.

John Cochrane.

[Andy Mackay[_2_]]

http://gliding.co.nz/news/latest-news/

[[email protected]]

I actually know of a chief flight instructor at a club that I no longer fly at who did this three times with three different people earlier this year.

But until somebody ends up dead there isn't a regulator alive that will do **** about it.