What happens in IMC

[Charlie Derk]

This is what happens when you're a schmuck and fly into IMC without an
Instument Rating...

http://www.naats.org/docs/flightassist.mp3

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...
>
>
>This is what happens when you're a schmuck and fly into IMC without an
>Instument Rating...


Only happens if you're a "schmuck" though, and cannot happen if you have
an instrument rating. I think this understanding represents a
significant advance in the study of VFR-into-IMC events, and should go a
long way toward reduction of accidents. . .

[Jay Honeck]

>>This is what happens when you're a schmuck and fly into IMC without an
>>Instument Rating...
>
> Only happens if you're a "schmuck" though, and cannot happen if you have
> an instrument rating.

I'm not sure if this was a tongue-in-cheek post, or not -- but there are
quite a few "loss of control in IMC" accidents every year by pilots with an
IR in their pocket.

Not to say it's not a good thing to have, but an instrument rating ain't a
"get out of jail free" card unless you're proficient and flying
well-maintained iron.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Happy Dog]

"Charlie Derk" > wrote in message
...
> This is what happens when you're a schmuck and fly into IMC without an
> Instument Rating...
>
> http://www.naats.org/docs/flightassist.mp3

Let me guess. You just got your IFR rating.

moo

[[email protected]]

<<This is what happens when you're a schmuck and fly into IMC without
an
Instument Rating... >>


Would that be a "schmuck in the muck"? <G>



www.rosspilot.com

[William Snow]

I will second that Jay.

--
Bill Snow, CP, IA, ASEL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

[Marco Leon]

I'll chime in too. The flying in IMC requires even more practice than a
VFR-only ticket with less room for mistakes. Equipment limitations demand
more respect as well. All of this means that an IR makes some people safer
while others become more dangerous.

Marco Leon

"William Snow" > wrote in message
. ..
> I will second that Jay.
>
> --
> Bill Snow, CP, IA, ASEL
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
> with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
> you will always long to return"
> - Leonardo Da Vinci
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Icebound]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>>
>>
>>This is what happens when you're a schmuck and fly into IMC without an
>>Instument Rating...
>
>
> Only happens if you're a "schmuck" though, and cannot happen if you have
> an instrument rating.

Quite a few NTSB reports do not agree with that assessment. Here's just
one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X20891&key=1

[Peter R.]

Charlie Derk > wrote:

> This is what happens when...
<snip>

Taking the cue from your subject line:

"What happens in IMC, stays in IMC."


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Denny]

To go back to the original post - I'm going to play spoiler here...

Other than pointing the hapless pilot towards VFR Wx (which he should
have known before departing) after the pilot recovered the aircraft,
what did ATC contribute? Did the controller reach out and fly the
airplane?

As I hear the recording, after all the pilots screaming into the mike,
the controller's reply was soothing but that was all... By the time the
pilot replied without screaming, he had already seen a tower go by,
figured out where down was, corrected his attitude, and the airplane
was upright and in visual conditions (or at least semi visual)... ATC
then instructed him to climb back into hard IMC so they could document
the crash coordinates on radar!!!

While that pilot may believe that ATC saved his bacon I have a
different take on it... They held his hand on the radio which is
certainly to their credit (99.9% of controllers are good folks)... But
putting a VFR pilot back into the clouds was not the way to go...
Clouds rarely go all the way to the ground... The fact that he could
climb the airplane back into hard IMC and maintain control while
changing headings, etc.., means he is a better pilot than given credit
for... If he had climbed back into the clag and then yanked the wings
off, ATC would have been answering hard questions to his wife's
lawyers...

He was lucky to survive his error resulting in a spiral (complete rolls
unlikely, just a confused inner ear)... ATC was lucky to survive their
error in climbing a vfr pilot back into imc...

denny

[[email protected]]

Denny wrote:

> While that pilot may believe that ATC saved his bacon I have a
> different take on it... They held his hand on the radio which is
> certainly to their credit (99.9% of controllers are good folks)... But
> putting a VFR pilot back into the clouds was not the way to go...

Listen again. The FSS guy said "remain VFR if able" and the pilot said
"climbing to 3000" and later that he was in complete IFR. Seems to me
the pilot made the call to go back up.

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

Marco Leon (at) wrote:
> I'll chime in too.

OK, I'll bite. I agree with Jay's basic statement that an IR is not a
magic wand, but that's not saying much.

> The flying in IMC requires even more practice than a
> VFR-only ticket with less room for mistakes.

Apples and oranges, to some degree. Flying a successful XC mission in
the system is an order of magnitude more complex than simply surviving
a VFR-into-IMC encounter. IFR students are typically capable of holding
heading and altitude within a few hundred feet in the first 10 or so
hours, while passing the checkride takes 50 or more. At least in my
case, the first things I get rusty on are procedures, like hold
entries. Basic attitude flying (you don't need to pass a checkride,
just survive) will likely last a lot longer between re-training.

> Equipment limitations demand
> more respect as well. All of this means that an IR makes some people safer
> while others become more dangerous.

Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
unrated pilots.

Now, the -utility- of the rating is a whole 'nother question on which I
have decidedly mixed feelings.

-cwk.

[ET]

wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Marco Leon (at) wrote:
>> I'll chime in too.
>
> OK, I'll bite. I agree with Jay's basic statement that an IR is not a
> magic wand, but that's not saying much.
>
>> The flying in IMC requires even more practice than a
>> VFR-only ticket with less room for mistakes.
>
> Apples and oranges, to some degree. Flying a successful XC mission in
> the system is an order of magnitude more complex than simply surviving
> a VFR-into-IMC encounter. IFR students are typically capable of
> holding heading and altitude within a few hundred feet in the first 10
> or so hours, while passing the checkride takes 50 or more. At least in
> my case, the first things I get rusty on are procedures, like hold
> entries. Basic attitude flying (you don't need to pass a checkride,
> just survive) will likely last a lot longer between re-training.
>
>> Equipment limitations demand
>> more respect as well. All of this means that an IR makes some people
>> safer while others become more dangerous.
>
> Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
> company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
> higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
> people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
> unrated pilots.
>
> Now, the -utility- of the rating is a whole 'nother question on which
> I have decidedly mixed feelings.
>
> -cwk.
>

Insurance companies look at statistics. All they actually see is that
as a group, people who have a IR have less accidents, that doesn't
automatically mean every pilot would be safer with an IR.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Brad Zeigler]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
>
> Taking the cue from your subject line:
>
> "What happens in IMC, stays in IMC."

The second rule of IMC is, you do not talk about IMC

[Gene Seibel]

I'd like to know what kind of editing was done on the piece. I find the
transition from dramatic panic to calm to be a little too quick. The
fact that it's part of a campaign doesn't help make me any less
skeptical either.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[[email protected]]

ET wrote:
> wrote in
> >
> > Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
> > company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
> > higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
> > people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
> > unrated pilots.
>
> Insurance companies look at statistics. All they actually see is that
> as a group, people who have a IR have less accidents, that doesn't
> automatically mean every pilot would be safer with an IR.
>

All generalizations will fail on an individual level at some time. That
doesn't make them generally invalid. A pilot who obtains his instrument
rating to become a safer pilot is making a wise decision. An instrument
pilot who thinks himself invulnerable tempts the wrath of the gods.

-cwk.

[Skylune]

Good point. One second he's screaming like a panicked VFR pilot who
screwed up badly, the next second we have "Iceman."


Just another data point to suggest that flying is not for amateurs. At a
minimum, all should have IRF ticket.

[Marco Leon]

Not sure if we are disagreeing here Colin. Like I stated in my post, some
pilots become safer while others do not. In other words, flying under IFR
requires more precision to stay within the rules. Flying beyond that level
of precision will get you reported by ATC and may even get you killed if
you're in IMC.

I believe that an IR will make more pilots safer than not. It's one of the
main reasons why I got mine. However, there will always be pilots who get
advanced ratings and are not ready or willing to respect its demands on both
skill and risk mitigation.

Marco Leon

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ET wrote:
> > wrote in
> > >
> > > Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
> > > company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
> > > higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
> > > people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
> > > unrated pilots.
> >
> > Insurance companies look at statistics. All they actually see is that
> > as a group, people who have a IR have less accidents, that doesn't
> > automatically mean every pilot would be safer with an IR.
> >
>
> All generalizations will fail on an individual level at some time. That
> doesn't make them generally invalid. A pilot who obtains his instrument
> rating to become a safer pilot is making a wise decision. An instrument
> pilot who thinks himself invulnerable tempts the wrath of the gods.
>
> -cwk.
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[[email protected]]

Marco Leon (at) wrote:
> Not sure if we are disagreeing here Colin. Like I stated in my post, some
> pilots become safer while others do not. In other words, flying under IFR
> requires more precision to stay within the rules. Flying beyond that level
> of precision will get you reported by ATC and may even get you killed if
> you're in IMC.

What I'm going after is the sentiment which seems to suggest that
unless an instrument pilot is current and proficient, then he's no
better off than a VFR pilot should he pull a VFR-into-IMC.

OF COURSE flying on an IFR flight plan in actual requires proficiency
as well as currency and that takes regular work to maintain. I make a
point of taking a ride in actual with my CFII every 3-4 months for
that.

However, simply maintaining heading&alt within a country mile, let's
call it "survival proficiency," probably requires a lot less for most
people. It's not quite riding a bicycle for most people but it's not
like you need to remember hold entries either.

This is my point. The rating can increase your risk exposure because it
is a license to go in harm's way. But that has nothing to do with the
rating, just the pilot. An instrument rating doesn't teach you bad
judgment any more than a private license teaches you good judgment.

-cwk.

[Marco Leon]

OK, I gotcha now. Yes, I agree. Someone blundering inadvertently into IMC is
better off if they have an IR. But definitely not a guarantee.

Marco Leon

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> What I'm going after is the sentiment which seems to suggest that
> unless an instrument pilot is current and proficient, then he's no
> better off than a VFR pilot should he pull a VFR-into-IMC.
>
> OF COURSE flying on an IFR flight plan in actual requires proficiency
> as well as currency and that takes regular work to maintain. I make a
> point of taking a ride in actual with my CFII every 3-4 months for
> that.
>
> However, simply maintaining heading&alt within a country mile, let's
> call it "survival proficiency," probably requires a lot less for most
> people. It's not quite riding a bicycle for most people but it's not
> like you need to remember hold entries either.
> -cwk.
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Just another data point to suggest that flying is not for amateurs. At a
> minimum, all should have IRF ticket.

I don't want to be around guys who are working on their "IRF" ticket...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

>>>The second rule of IMC is, you do not talk about IMC<<<

And the third(?) rule is: When the tower asks you where you broke out,
if it was 100ft below mins don't cop to it. Just say "Minimums". :o)


I've heard this before on freq at my home airport. Sheeesh.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Just another data point to suggest that flying is not for amateurs. At a
>> minimum, all should have IRF ticket.
>
> I don't want to be around guys who are working on their "IRF" ticket...


That is the prerequisite for the IFR rating: "I read FARs". Everything you ever
wanted to know about flying.... AND MORE!!!!



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mark T. Dame]

Brad Zeigler wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>><snip>
>>
>>Taking the cue from your subject line:
>>
>>"What happens in IMC, stays in IMC."
>
> The second rule of IMC is, you do not talk about IMC

The third rule of IMC is: If your plane stops, goes dark, or craps out,
the flight is over.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"I love cats. They taste just like chicken."