FLYING VFR IN IMC CONDITIONS

[Sky Scrapper]

HI everyone,
80% of aircrashes has taken place coz pilot attempted to fly VFR in
prevailing IMC. kindly through in your comments so we all enhance our
awareness.

[Larry Dighera]

On 15 Jul 2006 06:28:29 -0700, "Sky Scrapper" >
wrote in . com>::

>80% of aircrashes has taken place coz pilot attempted to fly VFR in
>prevailing IMC.

Are you able to cite a source for that statistic?

[Sky Scrapper]

yeah i have done a some research. but looking for more especially what
all are the associated hazards which cause this?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2006 06:28:29 -0700, "Sky Scrapper" >
> wrote in . com>::
>
> >80% of aircrashes has taken place coz pilot attempted to fly VFR in
> >prevailing IMC.
>
> Are you able to cite a source for that statistic?

[Larry Dighera]

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2006 06:28:29 -0700, "Sky Scrapper" >
>> wrote in . com>::
>>
>> >80% of aircrashes has taken place coz pilot attempted to fly VFR in
>> >prevailing IMC.
>>
>> Are you able to cite a source for that statistic?
>
On 15 Jul 2006 07:18:47 -0700, "Sky Scrapper" >
wrote in om>::

>yeah i have done a some research. but looking for more especially what
>all are the associated hazards which cause this?
>

Without a credible source to support your premise, it is futile to
discuss your allegation.

[Matt Whiting]

Sky Scrapper wrote:
> yeah i have done a some research. but looking for more especially what
> all are the associated hazards which cause this?
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>On 15 Jul 2006 06:28:29 -0700, "Sky Scrapper" >
>>wrote in . com>::
>>
>>
>>>80% of aircrashes has taken place coz pilot attempted to fly VFR in
>>>prevailing IMC.
>>
>>Are you able to cite a source for that statistic?
>
>

Then show the data. I believe your claim is false.

Matt

[Steven Barnes]

100% of bad grammar incidents are due to user error.
http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/

This has been a public service announcement.

Flying content: I got to try a couple landings from the right seat of our
Cherokee last night to start preparing for CFI practice. Ugh.

"Sky Scrapper" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> HI everyone,
> 80% of aircrashes has taken place coz pilot attempted to fly VFR in
> prevailing IMC. kindly through in your comments so we all enhance our
> awareness.
>

[Ron Natalie]

Sky Scrapper wrote:
> HI everyone,
> 80% of aircrashes has taken place coz pilot attempted to fly VFR in
> prevailing IMC.

Made up statistics. While measurement and categorization differ
from researcher to researcher most aircrashes don't even occur in
IMC (let alone by VFR). Weather in general comprises only 5%
or so of all accidents and less than 20% of the fatal accidents.


Most non-fatal accidents occur during takeoff and landing.

The issue is not that VFR-into-IMC comprises a large number
of crashes, but that VFR-into-IMC operations are more likely
to result in a crash (a fatal one at that) when they do occur.
Most of the weather related fatalities were VFR-into-IMC situations.

Source (2005 NALL REPORT, AOPA/Air Safety Foundation).

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:13:13 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:

> The issue is not that VFR-into-IMC comprises a large number of crashes,
> but that VFR-into-IMC operations are more likely to result in a crash (a
> fatal one at that) when they do occur. Most of the weather related
> fatalities were VFR-into-IMC situations.

While I've no problem believing that VFR into IMC is a dangerous
situation, I've some difficulty believing that it is as likely to cause
crashes as you state. Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I can imagine
instrument rated pilots doing quite well in the clouds w/o a clearance.

Despite what some news reporters would have the public believe, we know
that the lack of a flight plan doesn't immediately translate into flaming
wreckage falling from the sky.

At least once, I've myself experienced a case where ATC told me someone
"not being worked" was nearby while I myself was in the clouds. It's
possible that that other aircraft was VMC...but not too likely.

And I've read of other encounters here occasionally.

Keep in mind that statistics have no way to count such flights if they've
a successful outcome. So we've no way to know how frequent or infrequent
this is.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:32:16 GMT, "Steven Barnes"
> wrote in
>::

>100% of bad grammar incidents are due to user error.

Are you as articulate in your second language?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:06:42 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in >::

>Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I can imagine
>instrument rated pilots doing quite well in the clouds w/o a clearance.

That occurs quite often in Class G airspace.


>So we've no way to know how frequent or infrequent this is.

But you'll have to agree, that is highly unlikely that 80% of VFR in
IMC flights result in disaster as the original poster apparently
believes.

[Ron Natalie]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

>
> While I've no problem believing that VFR into IMC is a dangerous
> situation, I've some difficulty believing that it is as likely to cause
> crashes as you state. Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I can imagine
> instrument rated pilots doing quite well in the clouds w/o a clearance.

VFR-into-IMC generally refers to VFR pilots into IMC not Instrument
rated (or at least trained) pilots operating under VFR when they should
be IFR.

[Sky Scrapper]

i have just gone through my original message and realized my mistake. i
could not convey what actually i wanted. "high ratio of airline crashes
is attributable to flying VFR in IMC."

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:06:42 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
> wrote in >::
>
> >Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I can imagine
> >instrument rated pilots doing quite well in the clouds w/o a clearance.
>
> That occurs quite often in Class G airspace.
>
>
> >So we've no way to know how frequent or infrequent this is.
>
> But you'll have to agree, that is highly unlikely that 80% of VFR in
> IMC flights result in disaster as the original poster apparently
> believes.

[Matt Whiting]

Sky Scrapper wrote:
> i have just gone through my original message and realized my mistake. i
> could not convey what actually i wanted. "high ratio of airline crashes
> is attributable to flying VFR in IMC."

I think this mistake is even bigger than your last one. I don't know
what part of the world you are talking about, but I don't know of any US
airlines that routinely fly VFR. Maybe in Alaska...


Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Sky Scrapper wrote:
> i have just gone through my original message and realized my mistake. i
> could not convey what actually i wanted. "high ratio of airline crashes
> is attributable to flying VFR in IMC."

Which airline flies VFR in VMC *or* IMC?

[Dave Stadt]

"Sky Scrapper" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>i have just gone through my original message and realized my mistake. i
> could not convey what actually i wanted. "high ratio of airline crashes
> is attributable to flying VFR in IMC."

Skylune, is that you???? Come on out now we know you are in there.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Sky Scrapper" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >i have just gone through my original message and realized my mistake. i
> > could not convey what actually i wanted. "high ratio of airline crashes
> > is attributable to flying VFR in IMC."
>
> Skylune, is that you???? Come on out now we know you are in there.

Nahhh, even he is smarter than this bridge guarder.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave Doe]

In article >, ag7337
@gideon.org says...
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:13:13 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> > The issue is not that VFR-into-IMC comprises a large number of crashes,
> > but that VFR-into-IMC operations are more likely to result in a crash (a
> > fatal one at that) when they do occur. Most of the weather related
> > fatalities were VFR-into-IMC situations.

I don't think he means that though. He means VFR pilots.

What's that saying? "169 seconds to live" - or somethin' like that.

--
Duncan

[Thomas Borchert]

Sky,

> "high ratio of airline crashes
> is attributable to flying VFR in IMC."
>

Huh? Now I'd really want you to back that statement up with numbers.
Can you?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[KevinBlack]

I'm not sure about the US but AFAIK here in OZ all Regular public transport
(RPT) (Airliners) fly under IFR with some exceptions:

CAO 82.3 para 7.2 Subject to paragraphs 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.3 and 7.4,
each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.

Under these conditions the pilot(s) are commercial and IFR rated. The
aircraft must also comply with the regulations for IFR. It is unlikely,
although I have nothing to confirm this, that flight from VMC into IMC
(wheather flying under VFR or IFR) would cause significant grief. I know
there have been a number of CFIT accidents lately and a VFR rated pilot who
flies into IMC is at considerable risk, but airliners having accidents
because they fly VMC into IMC - bit of a stretch....

Just my opinion, YMMV,
Kevin

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Sky,
>
>> "high ratio of airline crashes
>> is attributable to flying VFR in IMC."
>>
>
> Huh? Now I'd really want you to back that statement up with numbers.
> Can you?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Skylune[_1_]]

Your inability to distinquish between BS and actual criticism, with
referenced factual data from BTS, NTSB, etc. is not surprising to me at
all.

Hey, did you see the three homes wrecked near Portland at the airshow
yesterday? Fortunately, it was a Sunday, so no one home. Only the
pilot/lawyer killed.

[Skylune[_1_]]

Here are some links. I saw 34 articles published in all, all across the
country. More for the database. Time the NTSB database is expanded to
include ground casualties as well as buildings destroyed, to get a truer
picture...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/jul/16/071603954.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/16/oregon.plane.crash.ap/index.html

http://www.komotv.com/stories/44441.htm

[Stefan]

Andrew Gideon schrieb:

> crashes as you state. Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I can imagine
> instrument rated pilots doing quite well in the clouds w/o a clearance.

Depends on the amount of cumuli graniti in the vicinity (cumuli silvae
work, too). Every year one or two such encounters around here.

Stefan

[David Wright]

>
> Are you as articulate in your second language?

Just my 2c.

Did he not use the word "coz" in the first post, in place of "because"?

That is not a mistaken use of a second language, is it? How many students of
foreign languages would be familiar with slang like that? Sounds like
laziness to me.

D.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:58:14 +0100, "David Wright"
> wrote in >::

>>
>> Are you as articulate in your second language?
>
>Just my 2c.
>
>Did he not use the word "coz" in the first post, in place of "because"?
>
>That is not a mistaken use of a second language, is it? How many students of
>foreign languages would be familiar with slang like that? Sounds like
>laziness to me.
>

That seems like a reasonable analysis.

I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt. :-)

[Skylune[_1_]]

Hey: nice appearance on Letterman the other night!

And good performance in the home run derby last week.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:48:44 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:

> VFR-into-IMC generally refers to VFR pilots into IMC not Instrument rated
> (or at least trained) pilots operating under VFR when they should be IFR.

I was at a safety seminar (ASF, perhaps?) a while back where the lecturer
made a point of saying that "VFR-into-IMC" accidents included instrument
rated pilots at least to some nontrivial extent. When questioned, he did
agree that the statistics he was citing made no reference to level of
currency.

I don't have that fellow's statistics, though, so I don't really know how
honest or accurate his statement was. It seemed a little odd to me, but
I've not yet fallen out of IFR currency. I've no idea what it would be
like to be years out of currency.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:10:12 +0200, Stefan wrote:

> Depends on the amount of cumuli graniti in the vicinity (cumuli silvae
> work, too). Every year one or two such encounters around here.

That's a good point. But would that be classified as VFR-into-IMC or as
CFIT in the statistics? Both, perhaps?

- Andrew

[Emily[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:10:12 +0200, Stefan wrote:
>
>> Depends on the amount of cumuli graniti in the vicinity (cumuli silvae
>> work, too). Every year one or two such encounters around here.
>
> That's a good point. But would that be classified as VFR-into-IMC or as
> CFIT in the statistics? Both, perhaps?
>
> - Andrew

I think the key word here is the "controlled" in CFIT....

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:03:29 -0500, Emily wrote:

> I think the key word here is the "controlled" in CFIT....

My original point was that an instrument rated pilot should be able to
switch to instruments w/o difficulty. So why would VFR-into-IMC pose a
crash risk to that pilot?

Someone else pointed out that this depends upon the availability of
altitude below. Keeping wings level and such doesn't help avoid the
ground if one's not aware of where that ground is.

So wouldn't this be an example of CFIT?

- Andrew

[Jose[_1_]]

> My original point was that an instrument rated pilot should be able to
> switch to instruments w/o difficulty. So why would VFR-into-IMC pose a
> crash risk to that pilot?

Perhaps, but if he's VFR he's probably unprepared for IMC, that is, he
hasn't reviewed the terrain and doesn't have a plan. There may even be
a reason (such as icing) that led him to go VFR. A scud runner in
winter caught in cloud is at a severe disadvantage compared to somebody
who has planned out an IMC flight.

Boom - he's in cloud. Ok, he's on the gauges. Now what?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> My original point was that an instrument rated pilot should be able to
>> switch to instruments w/o difficulty. So why would VFR-into-IMC pose a
>> crash risk to that pilot?
>
>
> Perhaps, but if he's VFR he's probably unprepared for IMC, that is, he
> hasn't reviewed the terrain and doesn't have a plan. There may even be
> a reason (such as icing) that led him to go VFR. A scud runner in
> winter caught in cloud is at a severe disadvantage compared to somebody
> who has planned out an IMC flight.
>
> Boom - he's in cloud. Ok, he's on the gauges. Now what?

Aviate, navigate and communicate ... as always. Was this supposed to be
a hard question?

Matt

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:56:56 +0000, Jose wrote:

> Perhaps, but if he's VFR he's probably unprepared for IMC, that is, he
> hasn't reviewed the terrain and doesn't have a plan.

Right. That was something I'd missed that someone else pointed out: that
one isn't prepared to avoid unseen terrain in this case.

My only question about that is whether the unpleasant ending here would be
called CFIT, VFR-into-IMC, or both?

- Andrew

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Boom - he's in cloud. Ok, he's on the gauges. Now what?
>
>
> Aviate, navigate and communicate ... as always. Was this supposed to be a hard question?

It was rhetorical. The point was that the "navigate" and "communicate"
would be more difficult if it came up from a scud run gone bad than if
it had been from a well planned IFR flight.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>>> Boom - he's in cloud. Ok, he's on the gauges. Now what?
>>
>>
>>
>> Aviate, navigate and communicate ... as always. Was this supposed to
>> be a hard question?
>
>
> It was rhetorical. The point was that the "navigate" and "communicate"
> would be more difficult if it came up from a scud run gone bad than if
> it had been from a well planned IFR flight.

Yes, but the aviate part is what really matters at that point.


Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting schrieb:

> Yes, but the aviate part is what really matters at that point.

Last thought of an aviating pilot in IMC: What is this mountain goat
doing up here in the clouds? But we're talking in circles now.

Speaking of circles: A 180 works most of the time. But only if you know
what your heading was before and if you're doing it fast enough. And not
in a valley, obviously.

Stefan

[Ron Lee]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:
>My original point was that an instrument rated pilot should be able to
>switch to instruments w/o difficulty. So why would VFR-into-IMC pose a
>crash risk to that pilot?

I can see were a VFR rated pilot who gets into IMC conditions is at
mucho higher risk of crashing than in VR conditions. I vaguely recall
that the time from entering IMC conditions (VFR pilot) until a spiral
dive is entered is on the order of a minute or so.

Ron Lee

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>> Yes, but the aviate part is what really matters at that point.
>
>
> Last thought of an aviating pilot in IMC: What is this mountain goat
> doing up here in the clouds? But we're talking in circles now.
>
> Speaking of circles: A 180 works most of the time. But only if you know
> what your heading was before and if you're doing it fast enough. And not
> in a valley, obviously.

And not scud running in the first place works all of the time.

Matt

[Kyle Boatright]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:56:56 +0000, Jose wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, but if he's VFR he's probably unprepared for IMC, that is, he
>> hasn't reviewed the terrain and doesn't have a plan.
>
> Right. That was something I'd missed that someone else pointed out: that
> one isn't prepared to avoid unseen terrain in this case.
>
> My only question about that is whether the unpleasant ending here would be
> called CFIT, VFR-into-IMC, or both?
>
> - Andrew

Another issue is whether the airframe is suitable for IFR and whether it is
equipped for IFR. There are aircraft out there with no gyros whatsoever.
Entering a cloud is almost suicidal if you don't have gyros. Next, the
combination of aircraft and equipment may not be appropriate for IFR. My
RV-6, for instance, has a turn and bank indicator and a whiskey compass. In
addition, it does not have "hands off" stability. Not a good IFR platform.
If I accidentally stumble into a cloud (for instance, it is night, I"m
looking at a map, and when I look outside, I'm in the clouds), that would be
a real problem, because the airplane almost certainly won't be straight and
level, and I'll be in a situation where I have to rescue a slightly unusual
attitude (and the surprise factor) using very marginal references.

On another tangent, in the VFR into IMC situation even the prepared IFR
pilot may be putting a lot of his focus on regaining visual reference, so
s/he may not pay enough attention to his/her scan. Next thing that happens
is an unusual attitude while in IMC.

KB

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:53:07 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

> Another issue is whether the airframe is suitable for IFR and whether it
> is equipped for IFR.

That's a good point. I fly IFRable aircraft mostly, but it occurs to me
that I don't even know what, beyond basics like TC, ASI, and ALT, are in
the airplanes I occasionally fly for spinning.

>
> On another tangent, in the VFR into IMC situation even the prepared IFR
> pilot may be putting a lot of his focus on regaining visual reference, so
> s/he may not pay enough attention to his/her scan. Next thing that happens
> is an unusual attitude while in IMC.

This is really the only point I'd considered, and I've some trouble with
the idea. Wouldn't an IFR pilot be aware of the threat, and scan
accordingly?

- Andrew

[Jose[_1_]]

> This is really the only point I'd considered, and I've some trouble with
> the idea. Wouldn't an IFR pilot be aware of the threat, and scan
> accordingly?

Well, if you enter thick haze, you might think you can keep the airplane
upright and get yourself into some better visual conditions while you
still know where you are. Once you surrender the windshield and go on
the gauges, if you are unprepared with an IFR flight plan, you really
don't know where you are in the IFR world.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

Many people think three miles is VMC and try to fly VFR.
But if there is nothing inside that three miles to use for
attitude flying, and you can't fly the gauges you're in
serious trouble. If you have been taught to know your
limits and have the wisdom to do what is needed, you would
be there in the first place.

JFK Jr. had a perfectly good autopilot he failed to use. He
failed to see the changing daylight conditions and delay his
trip. He was a "monkey" and not a pilot. Too bad, he
seemed to be the ONLY "good" Kennedy.


"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
|> This is really the only point I'd considered, and I've
some trouble with
| > the idea. Wouldn't an IFR pilot be aware of the threat,
and scan
| > accordingly?
|
| Well, if you enter thick haze, you might think you can
keep the airplane
| upright and get yourself into some better visual
conditions while you
| still know where you are. Once you surrender the
windshield and go on
| the gauges, if you are unprepared with an IFR flight plan,
you really
| don't know where you are in the IFR world.
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> This is really the only point I'd considered, and I've some trouble with
>> the idea. Wouldn't an IFR pilot be aware of the threat, and scan
>> accordingly?
>
>
> Well, if you enter thick haze, you might think you can keep the airplane
> upright and get yourself into some better visual conditions while you
> still know where you are. Once you surrender the windshield and go on
> the gauges, if you are unprepared with an IFR flight plan, you really
> don't know where you are in the IFR world.

If you are a competent instrument pilot, as soon as you have to use the
gauges to fly the airplane, you will switch to the "IFR world" and begin
to navigate using electronic means and call ATC for a clearance.


Matt

[Jim Macklin]

wouldn't
"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:QDAxg.84183$ZW3.41494@dukeread04...
| Many people think three miles is VMC and try to fly VFR.
| But if there is nothing inside that three miles to use for
| attitude flying, and you can't fly the gauges you're in
| serious trouble. If you have been taught to know your
| limits and have the wisdom to do what is needed, you
would[n't]
| be there in the first place.
|
| JFK Jr. had a perfectly good autopilot he failed to use.
He
| failed to see the changing daylight conditions and delay
his
| trip. He was a "monkey" and not a pilot. Too bad, he
| seemed to be the ONLY "good" Kennedy.
|
|
| "Jose" > wrote in message
| . com...
||> This is really the only point I'd considered, and I've
| some trouble with
|| > the idea. Wouldn't an IFR pilot be aware of the
threat,
| and scan
|| > accordingly?
||
|| Well, if you enter thick haze, you might think you can
| keep the airplane
|| upright and get yourself into some better visual
| conditions while you
|| still know where you are. Once you surrender the
| windshield and go on
|| the gauges, if you are unprepared with an IFR flight
plan,
| you really
|| don't know where you are in the IFR world.
||
|| Jose
|| --
|| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
| music.
|| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

NTSB says that doesn't always work, IFR pilots need some
level of pre-planning. The accident record for VFR into IMC
is nearly as bad for instrument rated pilots and VFR only
pilots, perhaps because more instrument pilots push VFR more
often.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jose wrote:
|
| >> This is really the only point I'd considered, and I've
some trouble with
| >> the idea. Wouldn't an IFR pilot be aware of the
threat, and scan
| >> accordingly?
| >
| >
| > Well, if you enter thick haze, you might think you can
keep the airplane
| > upright and get yourself into some better visual
conditions while you
| > still know where you are. Once you surrender the
windshield and go on
| > the gauges, if you are unprepared with an IFR flight
plan, you really
| > don't know where you are in the IFR world.
|
| If you are a competent instrument pilot, as soon as you
have to use the
| gauges to fly the airplane, you will switch to the "IFR
world" and begin
| to navigate using electronic means and call ATC for a
clearance.
|
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

Actually, he should have continued to use the autopilot from
cruise all the way to the airport. He was OK and in control
until he began the let-down. That's probably when he turned
the AP off.


I just knew him from the news, seemed like a decent fellow.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Many people think three miles is VMC and try to fly VFR.
| > But if there is nothing inside that three miles to use
for
| > attitude flying, and you can't fly the gauges you're in
| > serious trouble. If you have been taught to know your
| > limits and have the wisdom to do what is needed, you
would
| > be there in the first place.
| >
| > JFK Jr. had a perfectly good autopilot he failed to use.
He
| > failed to see the changing daylight conditions and delay
his
| > trip. He was a "monkey" and not a pilot. Too bad, he
| > seemed to be the ONLY "good" Kennedy.
|
| That may be true, I didn't know him personally. However,
he certainly
| shared the consistent Kennedy trait of having extremely
poor judgement.
| Yes, he should have used the AP once he got in trouble,
but he REALLY
| should have used good judgement to as to not have been
there in the
| first place.
|
| It seems that lousy judgement is in the Kennedy gene pool.
|
|
| Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Many people think three miles is VMC and try to fly VFR.
> But if there is nothing inside that three miles to use for
> attitude flying, and you can't fly the gauges you're in
> serious trouble.

Amen. VFR in three miles is NOT the easiest thing in the world. In
fact, I usually chicken out and file in those cases. IFR in three miles
gets me in that mindset.

Of course, you still have to watch out for the other idiots flying VFR,
especially when it drops BELOW 3.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> NTSB says that doesn't always work, IFR pilots need some
> level of pre-planning. The accident record for VFR into IMC
> is nearly as bad for instrument rated pilots and VFR only
> pilots, perhaps because more instrument pilots push VFR more
> often.
>
>
Not this one. I figure I paid all that money for an instrument rating
for a reason.

[Jim Macklin]

If you have the conditions, take a student out in low vis
conditions over a lake or snow covered ground under the
hood. Have them do some airwork. Then have them remove the
hood when there is nothing but white or gray ahead [low
altitude, about 1,000 feet]. They will be very surprised.
This is even more scary at night when there is no moon and
few ground lights. In fact, at night over many western
states, with 100 mile visibility and nothing to see, you
can't control the airplane without a good instrument scan.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Many people think three miles is VMC and try to fly VFR.
| > But if there is nothing inside that three miles to use
for
| > attitude flying, and you can't fly the gauges you're in
| > serious trouble.
|
| Amen. VFR in three miles is NOT the easiest thing in the
world. In
| fact, I usually chicken out and file in those cases. IFR
in three miles
| gets me in that mindset.
|
| Of course, you still have to watch out for the other
idiots flying VFR,
| especially when it drops BELOW 3.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> If you have the conditions, take a student out in low vis
> conditions over a lake or snow covered ground under the
> hood. Have them do some airwork. Then have them remove the
> hood when there is nothing but white or gray ahead [low
> altitude, about 1,000 feet]. They will be very surprised.
> This is even more scary at night when there is no moon and
> few ground lights. In fact, at night over many western
> states, with 100 mile visibility and nothing to see, you
> can't control the airplane without a good instrument scan.

LOL. I haven't seen IMC or snow in months. Well, for snow it's been
over a year and a half, thankfully.

I did do this when I lived up north, though. Kind of a scared straight
thing. I don't think pilots realize how low VFR minimums really are.

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you are a competent instrument pilot, as soon as you have to use the gauges to fly the airplane, you will switch to the "IFR world" and begin to navigate using electronic means and call ATC for a clearance.

No, that is not true. It is desirable, and it will keep you alive.
However, the temptation to stay visual (and not have to scramble)
exists. Some pilots succomb to it. That doesn't make them
non-competent instrument pilots, it makes them pilots that have
excercised poor judgement. You can define "competent" that way if you
like, but it doesn't alter the fact that pilots do it, and that Darwin
gets fed that way.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> VFR in three miles is NOT the easiest thing in the world. In fact, I usually chicken out and file in those cases.

It depends on what is causing the visibility to be three miles. I
learned to fly in SoCal, where 3-5 in haze was common. However, if it
was 3 miles, it was a good bet it would stay three miles.

In the Northeast, if it's three miles, it could easily go to one in no time.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

One of the traits of women pilots, testosterone doesn't
influence their judgment as much or as often as men.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > NTSB says that doesn't always work, IFR pilots need some
| > level of pre-planning. The accident record for VFR into
IMC
| > is nearly as bad for instrument rated pilots and VFR
only
| > pilots, perhaps because more instrument pilots push VFR
more
| > often.
| >
| >
| Not this one. I figure I paid all that money for an
instrument rating
| for a reason.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> VFR in three miles is NOT the easiest thing in the world. In fact, I
>> usually chicken out and file in those cases.
>
> It depends on what is causing the visibility to be three miles. I
> learned to fly in SoCal, where 3-5 in haze was common. However, if it
> was 3 miles, it was a good bet it would stay three miles.
>
> In the Northeast, if it's three miles, it could easily go to one in no
> time.
>
> Jose

That's true. I was doing this in the GL region (we don't get IMC where
I am now) and you never could tell if it was going to stay 3 or go to
1/4 or back up to 10. Ended up diverting a few times when I was just
out flying approaches...that's how fast 1 mile went below minimums.

I miss unpredictable weather.

[Jim Macklin]

Our job as CFIs is to teach more than the book, which means
we need to think all the time.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > If you have the conditions, take a student out in low
vis
| > conditions over a lake or snow covered ground under the
| > hood. Have them do some airwork. Then have them remove
the
| > hood when there is nothing but white or gray ahead [low
| > altitude, about 1,000 feet]. They will be very
surprised.
| > This is even more scary at night when there is no moon
and
| > few ground lights. In fact, at night over many western
| > states, with 100 mile visibility and nothing to see, you
| > can't control the airplane without a good instrument
scan.
|
| LOL. I haven't seen IMC or snow in months. Well, for
snow it's been
| over a year and a half, thankfully.
|
| I did do this when I lived up north, though. Kind of a
scared straight
| thing. I don't think pilots realize how low VFR minimums
really are.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Our job as CFIs is to teach more than the book, which means
> we need to think all the time.

Well, keep in mind, I don't actively teach much anymore. And when I
did, most of my students were instrument and commercial. They'd all
been in those situation and it generally wasn't a problem with them.

[Jim Macklin]

Never assume that a rating equals experience. I've had to
correct many high time and experienced pilots who knew the
wrong thing...an example.

A co-worker and charter pilot/CFI was getting some recurrent
training for 135. Looking for some question, I asked him
about a place on the chart R something... He went on to
explain that you could just fly right on through, but you
needed a clearance for an MOA. After a short argument, and
referring to THE BOOK, he came to understand that he was in
error. He did call the dozens of student he had been
teaching and corrected them. Why had it not been caught
before?

He soloed in a Cub seaplane at 14, without a student pilot
license in far northern Minnesota. He had lots of hours and
the examiner didn't ask him on the private check-ride.
Nobody else ever asked him either until he had his ATP, CFI,
CFII and had been flying 135 several years.

That's why a flight review is a good thing if taken
seriously.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Our job as CFIs is to teach more than the book, which
means
| > we need to think all the time.
|
| Well, keep in mind, I don't actively teach much anymore.
And when I
| did, most of my students were instrument and commercial.
They'd all
| been in those situation and it generally wasn't a problem
with them.
|

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:55:38 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >::

>
>It seems that lousy judgement is in the Kennedy gene pool.

Social pressure (like getting his wife and her sister to the wedding
on time) can corrupt the judgment of the best of pilots.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> If you are a competent instrument pilot, as soon as you have to use
>> the gauges to fly the airplane, you will switch to the "IFR world" and
>> begin to navigate using electronic means and call ATC for a clearance.
>
>
> No, that is not true. It is desirable, and it will keep you alive.
> However, the temptation to stay visual (and not have to scramble)
> exists. Some pilots succomb to it. That doesn't make them
> non-competent instrument pilots, it makes them pilots that have
> excercised poor judgement. You can define "competent" that way if you
> like, but it doesn't alter the fact that pilots do it, and that Darwin
> gets fed that way.

Part of being competent is having decent judgement. How do you define it?

Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Never assume that a rating equals experience. I've had to
> correct many high time and experienced pilots who knew the
> wrong thing...an example.

I'm not. I'd flown with them before and knew what there experience was.
That was my point.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Part of being competent is having decent judgement. How do you define it?

It doesn't matter, really. We'd be just playing with words. But
competent does not mean perfect, and imperfect means subject to lapses
in judgement. Therefore, having a lapse in judgement does not make you
incompetent.

There was a thread on this some months back.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> If you are a competent instrument pilot, as soon as you have to use the
> gauges to fly the airplane, you will switch to the "IFR world" and begin
> to navigate using electronic means and call ATC for a clearance.

I'm not yet instrument rated. However, I have been in the right seat
with pilots who filed IFR on the fly with ATC due to unexpected
conditions. It really was no big deal.

FWIW, shouldn't any non-instrument rated PP-ASEL should be able to use
two VORs to get a really good idea of the present location?

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:01:11 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

> The accident record for VFR into IMC is nearly as bad for
> instrument rated pilots and VFR only pilots, perhaps because more
> instrument pilots push VFR more often.

This is the assertion behind this discussion that I question. Yes, the
NTSB shows that there have been VFR-into-IMC accidents with rated pilots.
But there is no count of the number of rated pilots that fly
VFR-into-IMC and don't run into trouble.

W/o that, I'm not sure that one can assert that the record is nearly as
bad (unless you're using absolute numbers rather than a rate of failure).

However, this thread has shown that the unprepared but rated pilot can
have a lot to overcome to avoid becoming a statistic.

- Andrew

[Matt Whiting]

B A R R Y wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are a competent instrument pilot, as soon as you have to use
>> the gauges to fly the airplane, you will switch to the "IFR world" and
>> begin to navigate using electronic means and call ATC for a clearance.
>
>
> I'm not yet instrument rated. However, I have been in the right seat
> with pilots who filed IFR on the fly with ATC due to unexpected
> conditions. It really was no big deal.

Correct, it generally isn't a big deal. Might be within 20 miles of a
major hub airport, but in general I've not found it a big deal.


> FWIW, shouldn't any non-instrument rated PP-ASEL should be able to use
> two VORs to get a really good idea of the present location?

Yes.

Matt

[Alan Gerber]

Jim Macklin > wrote:
> A co-worker and charter pilot/CFI was getting some recurrent
> training for 135. Looking for some question, I asked him
> about a place on the chart R something... He went on to
> explain that you could just fly right on through, but you
> needed a clearance for an MOA. After a short argument, and
> referring to THE BOOK, he came to understand that he was in
> error. He did call the dozens of student he had been
> teaching and corrected them. Why had it not been caught
> before?

Why didn't a single one of those dozens of students catch this and
challenge him? Didn't any of them do any reading?

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Jim Macklin]

Can't answer that question. But how many students QUESTION
their own instructor, after all, he [she] is a god.



"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
| > A co-worker and charter pilot/CFI was getting some
recurrent
| > training for 135. Looking for some question, I asked
him
| > about a place on the chart R something... He went on to
| > explain that you could just fly right on through, but
you
| > needed a clearance for an MOA. After a short argument,
and
| > referring to THE BOOK, he came to understand that he was
in
| > error. He did call the dozens of student he had been
| > teaching and corrected them. Why had it not been caught
| > before?
|
| Why didn't a single one of those dozens of students catch
this and
| challenge him? Didn't any of them do any reading?
|
| ... Alan
|
| --
| Alan Gerber
| gerber AT panix DOT com

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Can't answer that question. But how many students QUESTION
> their own instructor, after all, he [she] is a god.

I always did. Why would you blindly accept the teachings of a CFI, who,
more likely than not, was randomly chosen by you, a person completely
new to aviation?

[Jim Macklin]

Because students don't know any better. I wonder why all
the dozen or more DE and FAA inspectors didn't catch the
error.



"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Can't answer that question. But how many students
QUESTION
| > their own instructor, after all, he [she] is a god.
|
| I always did. Why would you blindly accept the teachings
of a CFI, who,
| more likely than not, was randomly chosen by you, a person
completely
| new to aviation?

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> Because students don't know any better.
>

Only if they don't want to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> after all, he [she] is a god.
>

If someone blindly accepts argument by authority, one might say they're
not fit for the decision-making process required of a pilot-in-command.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

A two hour student pilot has zero knowledge or experience
with which to judge the skill, competency, or ethics of a
CFI. Every CFI has a commercial pilot certificate [except
the SP} and thus appears so more skilled that a student
pilot is in awe. This condition goes beyond just student
pilots, even high time pilots will defer to THEIR CFI even
when it is not appropriate, such as the Thurman Munson case.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Jim,
|
| > after all, he [she] is a god.
| >
|
| If someone blindly accepts argument by authority, one
might say they're
| not fit for the decision-making process required of a
pilot-in-command.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

[Jim Macklin]

A 70 hour student may have developed some basis to judge
their CFI, a 2 hour student has only those two hours.


At every airport, the "old timers" can tell you, after the
fact that they knew "George was going to kill somebody" but
the unwritten rule is to never speak badly about a fellow
aviator.


If there are any student pilots reading this, not all
instructors are any good at all. Not all commercial pilots
are skilled and not all ATPs have good moral character or
ethics.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Jim,
|
| > Because students don't know any better.
| >
|
| Only if they don't want to.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> A two hour student pilot has zero knowledge or experience
> with which to judge the skill, competency, or ethics of a
> CFI.
>

See my other posting.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> A 70 hour student may have developed some basis to judge
> their CFI, a 2 hour student has only those two hours.

And all the books he/she should have read. And all the newsgroups
postings. The King (argh!) videos. The hanging out at the field. Also,
any person should have a reasonably tuned BS detector.

> At every airport, the "old timers" can tell you, after the
> fact that they knew "George was going to kill somebody" but
> the unwritten rule is to never speak badly about a fellow
> aviator.

Then I hope the "old timers" feel really bad the first time and speak
up next time.

> If there are any student pilots reading this, not all
> instructors are any good at all.

Yep. Which is why one shouldn't be afraid to switch if a CFI doesn't
work out.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:22:04 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>A 70 hour student may have developed some basis to judge
>their CFI, a 2 hour student has only those two hours.
>
>
>At every airport, the "old timers" can tell you, after the
>fact that they knew "George was going to kill somebody" but
>the unwritten rule is to never speak badly about a fellow
>aviator.
>

What unwritten rule? We had one guy lose his judgmental ability and
quite a few of the local pilots had a talk with the FAA. He wrecked
three planes with one that seriously injured himself and another
pilot. The FAA grounded him over that and with the past history and
pilot input he was done.

Few of us would report some one for hotdogging (within reason), but
when they appear to be of the "he's gonna kill some body" most around
here would speak up. If's he's gonna kill himself that's just
Darwinism.

>
>If there are any student pilots reading this, not all
>instructors are any good at all. Not all commercial pilots
>are skilled and not all ATPs have good moral character or
>ethics.

We have one very highly thought of, award winning instructor on the
field that I refuse to fly with.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>
>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
>message ...
>| Jim,
>|
>| > Because students don't know any better.
>| >
>|
>| Only if they don't want to.
>|
>| --
>| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>|
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:49:29 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Jim,
>
>> after all, he [she] is a god.
>>
>
>If someone blindly accepts argument by authority, one might say they're
>not fit for the decision-making process required of a pilot-in-command.

What? Our whole modern society is based on that.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Macklin]

And how many hours do you have? Point is, you have
experience now.





"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:22:04 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >A 70 hour student may have developed some basis to judge
| >their CFI, a 2 hour student has only those two hours.
| >
| >
| >At every airport, the "old timers" can tell you, after
the
| >fact that they knew "George was going to kill somebody"
but
| >the unwritten rule is to never speak badly about a fellow
| >aviator.
| >
|
| What unwritten rule? We had one guy lose his judgmental
ability and
| quite a few of the local pilots had a talk with the FAA.
He wrecked
| three planes with one that seriously injured himself and
another
| pilot. The FAA grounded him over that and with the past
history and
| pilot input he was done.
|
| Few of us would report some one for hotdogging (within
reason), but
| when they appear to be of the "he's gonna kill some body"
most around
| here would speak up. If's he's gonna kill himself that's
just
| Darwinism.
|
| >
| >If there are any student pilots reading this, not all
| >instructors are any good at all. Not all commercial
pilots
| >are skilled and not all ATPs have good moral character or
| >ethics.
|
| We have one very highly thought of, award winning
instructor on the
| field that I refuse to fly with.
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
|
| >
| >
| >"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
| >message ...
| >| Jim,
| >|
| >| > Because students don't know any better.
| >| >
| >|
| >| Only if they don't want to.
| >|
| >| --
| >| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
| >|
| >
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

[Emily[_1_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:49:29 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>> Jim,
>>
>>> after all, he [she] is a god.
>>>
>> If someone blindly accepts argument by authority, one might say they're
>> not fit for the decision-making process required of a pilot-in-command.
>
> What? Our whole modern society is based on that.

No it's not.

[Thomas Borchert]

Roger,

> >If someone blindly accepts argument by authority, one might say they're
> >not fit for the decision-making process required of a pilot-in-command.
>
> What? Our whole modern society is based on that.
>

Not at all. On merit, yes, possibly. On authority, i.e. status - no way. At
least not for a reasonably skeptical being. "I have more flight hours than
you so I'm right", "I am flight instructor, so I am right", "I am your boss
so I am right" - all don't work or shouldn't work.

As for "modern" society: Abiding by conventional wisdom would have
prevented Einstein, the Wrights, railways and much more that's part of
modern society.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)