Get-Home-Itis, Arrogance, or What?

[Ron Snipes]

This accident was posted on the newsgroups right after it happened. Now
published on the NTSB website, which gives us more info than the 6pm news.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family left behind, but with that
said.....How can you throw everything you learned in Flight Training about
Weather, out the window. I also considered a subject line of: Just how many
G's does it take to rip the wings off a C-150? What a shame.
************************************************** ********************************************
NTSB Identification: NYC06FA215
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, September 04, 2006 in Penhook, VA
Aircraft: Cessna 150G, registration: N2932J
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.

On September 4, 2006, at 1132 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 150G, N2932J,
was destroyed when it impacted trees and terrain following an inflight
breakup near Penhook, Virginia. The certificated private pilot and passenger
were fatally injured. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and no
flight plan was filed for the flight, which departed Smith Mountain Lake
Airport (W91), Monetna, Virginia, about 1120, destined for Florence Regional
Airport (FLO), Florence, South Carolina. The personal flight was conducted
under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to preliminary air traffic control (ATC) communication and radar
data obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the pilot
contacted Roanoke approach control about 1120, and requested visual flight
rules (VFR) flight following services. Shortly thereafter, the airplane was
radar identified about 2 nautical miles south of Smith Mountain Lake
Airport.

The airplane tracked generally southbound, until about 1130, when the pilot
asked the controller for a radar vector. When queried about the request, the
pilot responded, "we're kinda lost in some fog here." The controller then
asked the pilot to state his present heading, to which the pilot replied, "I
can't tell, I think we're upside-down." The controller instructed the pilot
to turn right, and 18 seconds later advised the pilot to stop his turn.
During this time the airplane had completed a left turn to a northeasterly
track, and its altitude varied between 4,500 and 4,700 feet. About 10
seconds later, at 1132, the pilot stated, "we can't see, we can't see, we
can't see," and ten seconds later transmitted something unintelligible. The
controller advised the pilot to stay calm, that he was at an altitude of
4,500 feet, and that he should not climb or descend the airplane. No further
transmissions were received from the pilot, and radar contact was lost
shortly thereafter.

A witness, located near the accident site, reported that he heard "a loud
pop." When he looked up, he saw the airplane descend into the woods, and
then saw the wings of the airplane "floating" down to the ground.

Another witness described that she heard the airplane, and that it sounded
like "it was landing in the back yard." She stepped outside and saw the
wings of the airplane "twirling in the air," before they impacted the
ground, but did not see the rest of the airplane.

The accident occurred during the hours of daylight at 36 degrees 56 minutes
north latitude, 74 degrees 36 minutes west longitude.

All major components of the airplane were accounted for at the scene, except
for a portion of the right side doorpost, which was not recovered. The
wreckage path was oriented on a heading about 080 degrees magnetic, and was
about 3,500 feet long. The wings had separated from the fuselage, and were
found along the wreckage path, along with numerous other small pieces from
the airplane. The left and right wings separated near the wing root, and a
portion of the cabin roof and both the fore and aft carry-through spars
remained attached to the left wing. Examination of both wings revealed
signatures consistent with an in-flight separation in the positive, or
upward, direction. All of the fracture surfaces examined on both wings, and
their respective wing struts, were consistent with overload.

Flight control continuity was confirmed to all control surfaces. The
horizontal stabilizer, elevator, and trim tab were bent upward about 45
degrees near their mid-span. Measurement of the flap actuator revealed an
indication consistent with the flaps being in the up position, and the
elevator trim tab was in the 10-degree tab up position.

Fuel similar in color to automotive fuel was found in both wing fuel tanks,
and in the carburetor. The fuel selector handle was found in the on
position. The engine crankshaft was rotated by hand at the propeller, which
remained attached, and valvetrain continuity was confirmed. Compression was
obtained on all cylinders, except for cylinder number 3, which was dislodged
from the crankcase. The impact damaged magneto leads were cut from the
magnetos, and rotation of both magnetos produced spark on all towers. The
spark plugs exhibited normal wear, and their electrodes were black in color.

The weather conditions reported at Roanoke Regional Airport (ROA), about 26
nautical miles northwest of the accident site, at 1154, included winds from
150 degrees at 6 knots, 3 statute miles visibility in light rain and mist,
scattered clouds at 500 feet, an overcast ceiling at 700 feet, temperature
63 degrees Fahrenheit, dewpoint 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter
setting of 30.20 inches of mercury.

The weather conditions reported at Lynchburg Regional Airport (LYH), about
30 nautical miles northeast of the accident site, at 1126, included variable
winds at 3 knots, 2 statute miles visibility in heavy rain and mist, few
clouds at 1,100 feet, an overcast ceiling at 2,600 feet, temperature 63
degrees Fahrenheit, dewpoint 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting
of 30.19 inches of mercury.

An AIRMET for IFR conditions was issued about 1 1/2 hours before the
accident airplane departed. It warned of occasional ceilings below 1,000
feet, and visibilities below 3 statute miles due to clouds, precipitation,
mist, and fog, with the conditions ending between 1100 and 1400. An AIRMET
for mountain obscuration was also issued at the same time that warned of
similar conditions continuing beyond 1600 through 2200.

A preliminary review of flight service station data revealed that the pilot
did not contact any flight service stations or the Direct User Access
Terminal System (DUATS) to obtain a weather briefing, or file a flight plan,
prior to the accident flight.

The pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single
engine land, which was issued on June 17, 2006. His most recent FAA third
class medical certificate was issued on February 16, 2006. He did not hold
an instrument rating.
Index for Sep2006 | Index of months

[Kevin Clarke]

Get your IFR ticket folks and fly like you've been trained. That's just
a terrible story.

KC


Ron Snipes wrote:
> This accident was posted on the newsgroups right after it happened. Now
> published on the NTSB website, which gives us more info than the 6pm news.
>
> My thoughts and prayers go out to the family left behind, but with that
> said.....How can you throw everything you learned in Flight Training about
> Weather, out the window. I also considered a subject line of: Just how many
> G's does it take to rip the wings off a C-150? What a shame.

[Jim Logajan]

"Ron Snipes" > wrote:
> Accident occurred Monday, September 04, 2006 in Penhook, VA
....
> The pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane
> single engine land, which was issued on June 17, 2006. His most recent
> FAA third class medical certificate was issued on February 16, 2006.
> He did not hold an instrument rating.

Looks like around four months to get the certificate and a fatal mistake in
judgment two and a half months later. :-(

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Ron Snipes" > wrote:
>> Accident occurred Monday, September 04, 2006 in Penhook, VA
> ...
>> The pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane
>> single engine land, which was issued on June 17, 2006. His most recent
>> FAA third class medical certificate was issued on February 16, 2006.
>> He did not hold an instrument rating.
>
> Looks like around four months to get the certificate and a fatal mistake
> in
> judgment two and a half months later. :-(

And not just a mistake in judgment. He also lacked the skill to keep his
plane upright under instrument conditions, which all private pilots are
supposed to be trained to do.

--Gary

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Besides, being carbureted, a 150 will quit after only a few seconds
inverted. The NTSB should also look at the quality and quantity of the
simulated IMC time during his training.

[ktbr]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Besides, being carbureted, a 150 will quit after only a few seconds
> inverted. The NTSB should also look at the quality and quantity of the
> simulated IMC time during his training.
>
>
>
The basic instrument flight instruction part of PP training is
really not sufficient, nor is it intended to be for sustained
flight into IMC. Especially when at the same time trying to
communicate with ATC, manage NAV radios and so forth.... that
is what the instrument rating trains you to do.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Ron Snipes" > wrote in message
news:uCHQg.157$b23.82@dukeread07...
> "I can't tell, I think we're upside-down."

This gives me a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach.

[Gary Drescher]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Besides, being carbureted, a 150 will quit after only a few seconds
>> inverted. The NTSB should also look at the quality and quantity of the
>> simulated IMC time during his training.
>>
> The basic instrument flight instruction part of PP training is
> really not sufficient, nor is it intended to be for sustained
> flight into IMC. Especially when at the same time trying to
> communicate with ATC, manage NAV radios and so forth.... that
> is what the instrument rating trains you to do.

I disagree. The PP instrument training really should suffice to keep you
upright in clouds for long enough to reach VMC if there's any within range.
The instrument rating, in addition, teaches you to reliably maintain a
precise heading and altitude, perform approaches to the minima (and with a
partial panel), and understand the IFR system (planning, filing, lost comm
procedures, and other regulations).

--Gary

[ktbr]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> I agree with Gary. This is why it was added to the PP
> curriculum - to keep the PP alive until he hit VMC. I'd
> encourage instructors to make sure the PP has not lost that
> skill when giving a flight review.
>

Well, you can hope and dream all you want, but only 3 hours
of training in basic instrument procedures is required for a
private pilot certificate. Even good instrument rated pilots
(the best ones) set personal minimums until they gain a certain
number of hours of instrument flying to gain confidence....
and that is without an instructor in the right seat.

Finding yourself in the dead middle of hard IMC with only
3 hours of training can be disasterous as this sad event
illustrates. If you think these 3 hours will save your life
if you get into a situation like that you are whistling past
a graveyard. I wonder how many PP sans IFR rating actually
have practiced simulated instrument flying and unusyal
attitudes since their checkride? To maintain instrument
currency you are required to fly approaches, holding
patterns and so forth every six months (and that's bare minimum).
If you are doing 10 minutes every 2 years during BFR you
are a potential statistic.

Yeah, I know, I'm sure there is a pilot out there that can
fly an ILS to minimums after 3 hours of training but most can't.

[ktbr]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> I disagree. The PP instrument training really should suffice to keep you
> upright in clouds for long enough to reach VMC if there's any within range.

It is generally understood that the training is sufficient to
allow you to recognize your have entered IMC and then immediately
make a 180 and get back out.... all in the space of a reasonably
short time.... and there is not too much turbulence... and you are
not to nervous... and hopefully you have maintained those skills
since you checkride. etc. etc. It also assumes the pilot has and
uses every cell of good judgement he has.

I doubt the conditions of the obave referenced accident met this
criteria.

[Marc Adler]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Ron Snipes" > wrote in message
> news:uCHQg.157$b23.82@dukeread07...
> > "I can't tell, I think we're upside-down."
>
> This gives me a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Sorry for the stupid question, but how on earth is this possible? Can't
you tell if you're upside down or not? Or is it like being deep
underwater?

Marc

[Jose[_1_]]

> Sorry for the stupid question, but how on earth is this possible? Can't
> you tell if you're upside down or not? Or is it like being deep
> underwater?

If you're in cloud, you can't see out. When flying, you can generate g
forces (by turning, banking, climbing, etc) which can fool you into
thinking that "down" is in any direction. So, it's quite easy to not
know where up and down are. I suppose it's like being deep underwater,
but for different reasons.

This is one of the first things one must learn in instrument flying -
trust the instruments over your inner ear. They are less likely to be
lying to you.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" > said:
>I disagree. The PP instrument training really should suffice to keep you
>upright in clouds for long enough to reach VMC if there's any within range.

If you were in VMC and entered a cloud, it's supposed to be sufficient
training that you can make a gentle 180 back to VMC. But this idiot
launched into IMC. That's significantly different.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Panic kills"
-- Rick Grant (quoting RCAF pilot training)

[Maule Driver]

ktbr wrote:
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> I disagree. The PP instrument training really should suffice to keep
>> you upright in clouds for long enough to reach VMC if there's any
>> within range.
>
> It is generally understood that the training is sufficient to
> allow you to recognize your have entered IMC and then immediately
> make a 180 and get back out.... all in the space of a reasonably
> short time.... and there is not too much turbulence... and you are
> not to nervous... and hopefully you have maintained those skills
> since you checkride. etc. etc. It also assumes the pilot has and
> uses every cell of good judgement he has.
>
> I doubt the conditions of the obave referenced accident met this
> criteria.

As soon as he decided to depart, a few cells can be assumed to be on the
blink.

All well said.

[Maule Driver]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Besides, being carbureted, a 150 will quit after only a few seconds
> inverted.
>
I'm thinking in such a situation that the negative G required to kill
the engine would be pre-empted by pilot's need to pull the wings off.

Does anyone, ever, kill an engine that way when mistakenly entering IMC?

[ktbr]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

>
> If you think it's useless, what is the point of the training
> then?

Please show me where I stated that this training was useless.
I never stated that it was useless, only that 3 hours of this
training was insufficient to save someone from the situation
that the pilot of the 152 encountered in that incident. You
seemed (in your post) to insist that the 3 hours as a part of
PP training should be sufficient to allow anyone to safely fly
their airplane in IMC safely back to VMC. All too often this is
not to be the case.

As a CFI I make no illusions about how skilled a given PP will be
if they encounter serious IMC and I do warn them of this. We
train them as best we can within the 3 hours or so we have, and,
of course they must demonstrate an acceptable level of performanc
in this activity on their checkride.

The fact is that most people want to get their PP certificate
in as minimum a time as necessary (can't blame them, its not
cheap). Perhaps PP certificates should have a warning label on
them sorta like Walmarts labels on superman holloween costumes
("Warning: this cape will not give the wearer the ability to fly")

:^)



we have to spend. If they desire to spend
more time in this area or I Possibly he had a false sense of confidence
of his
3 hours of training.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The fact is that most people want to get their PP certificate
> in as minimum a time as necessary (can't blame them, its not
> cheap).

My ground instructor had a saying: Looking for a bargain in flight
training is like looking for a bargain in a brain surgeon.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maule Driver]

Jose wrote:
>> Sorry for the stupid question, but how on earth is this possible? Can't
>> you tell if you're upside down or not? Or is it like being deep
>> underwater?
>
> If you're in cloud, you can't see out. When flying, you can generate g
> forces (by turning, banking, climbing, etc) which can fool you into
> thinking that "down" is in any direction. So, it's quite easy to not
> know where up and down are. I suppose it's like being deep underwater,
> but for different reasons.
>
> This is one of the first things one must learn in instrument flying -
> trust the instruments over your inner ear.

...and it's what I always thought was the actual purpose of the minimal
instrument flying taught in the PP curriculum, that is, you can't do it
without reference to the instruments. Second lesson is, that in
anything but momentary, smooth IMC, you can't do it without more training.

>They are less likely to be
> lying to you.

:-)

[[email protected]]

> Well, you can hope and dream all you want, but only 3 hours
> of training in basic instrument procedures is required for a
> private pilot certificate. Even good instrument rated pilots
> (the best ones) set personal minimums until they gain a certain
> number of hours of instrument flying to gain confidence....
> and that is without an instructor in the right seat.

Agree 100 percent with the above.

> Finding yourself in the dead middle of hard IMC with only
> 3 hours of training can be disasterous as this sad event
> illustrates. If you think these 3 hours will save your life
> if you get into a situation like that you are whistling past
> a graveyard.

and here is my take on training.

It shoudl be *required* that every VFR pilot experience actual IMC in
the three hours as part of their VFR training, to recognize and see the
real dangers of IMC.

I took a VFR only pilot up doing some approaches in actual conditions,
and by the time we landed, his eyes were big as saucers, and also came
out of it with a fuller respect for IMC conditions. We had 1.1 hours
of hard IMC out of 1.5 hours of flying.

It was bumpy inside the clag, and by the time we landed, he even said,
I'm not so sure I could have handled it by myself. He also said, had
he not purposely focused on the intruments, he wouldn't have know which
way was up. Never mind trying to handle the controls, it was
overwhelming just experiencing it.

Nothing like the real thing.....

Allen

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Ron Snipes" wrote)
> Just how many G's does it take to rip the wings off a C-150? What a shame.
> ************************************************** ********************************************
> NTSB Identification: NYC06FA215
> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> Accident occurred Monday, September 04, 2006 in Penhook, VA
> Aircraft: Cessna 150G, registration: N2932J
> Injuries: 2 Fatal.


This jumped out at me: pilot/passenger/plane running into, and breaking up,
in 'hard IMC'

....calm day.

The weather conditions reported at Roanoke Regional Airport (ROA), about 26
nautical miles northwest of the accident site, at 1154, included winds from
150 degrees at 6 knots, 3 statute miles visibility in light rain and mist,
scattered clouds at 500 feet, an overcast ceiling at 700 feet, temperature
63 degrees Fahrenheit, dewpoint 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter
setting of 30.20 inches of mercury.

The weather conditions reported at Lynchburg Regional Airport (LYH), about
30 nautical miles northeast of the accident site, at 1126, included variable
winds at 3 knots, 2 statute miles visibility in heavy rain and mist, few
clouds at 1,100 feet, an overcast ceiling at 2,600 feet, temperature 63
degrees Fahrenheit, dewpoint 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting
of 30.19 inches of mercury.


Montblack

[Chris W]

Ron Snipes wrote:

> Fuel similar in color to automotive fuel was found in both wing fuel tanks,
> and in the carburetor. The fuel selector handle was found in the on
> position. The engine crankshaft was rotated by hand at the propeller, which
> remained attached, and valvetrain continuity was confirmed. Compression was
> obtained on all cylinders, except for cylinder number 3, which was dislodged
> from the crankcase. The impact damaged magneto leads were cut from the
> magnetos, and rotation of both magnetos produced spark on all towers. The
> spark plugs exhibited normal wear, and their electrodes were black in color.


I haven't read too many of these reports so this may be just standard
stuff, but it seems odd to me. They already determined the wings came
off in flight, why does it mater if the engine quit or not. The end
result would have still been the same.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Chris W]

Marc Adler wrote:

> Sorry for the stupid question, but how on earth is this possible? Can't
> you tell if you're upside down or not? Or is it like being deep
> underwater?

The way it was explained to me once is you have your own instrumentation
in your head that is similar to the attitude indicator in an airplane.
However it has to reset it's self quite frequently or it sends your
brain wrong information. When you are flying in the clouds, with out a
visual indication of what is up and down, your internal attitude
indicator gets out of calibration in just a few minutes or less (can't
remember how long). Then regardless of the feel of g force which could
be in any direction when flying, your now out of calibration internal
attitude indicator keeps telling your brain what it thinks is up which
is most likely wrong.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Chris W]

ktbr wrote:
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
>>
>> If you think it's useless, what is the point of the training
>> then?
>
>
> Please show me where I stated that this training was useless.
> I never stated that it was useless, only that 3 hours of this
> training was insufficient to save someone from the situation
> that the pilot of the 152 encountered in that incident.


If it is insufficient for that, it sounds pretty useless to me.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Bob Chilcoat]

When we were kids, we all used to spin around until we were "dizzy". Trying
then to walk straight ahead and upright, when you can actually SEE the
(real) horizon, is nearly impossible. The confused disorientation of a
"tumbled" inner ear is almost overpowering. I'm in the middle of my
instrument training. I haven't experienced true spacial disorientation, but
I can guess from the above experience, that it will be very easy to lose it
in hard IMC. The thought makes me concentrate very carefully on those
needles.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> Jose > wrote:
>
>>This is one of the first things one must learn in instrument flying -
>>trust the instruments over your inner ear. They are less likely to be
>>lying to you.
>
> When someone hasn't experienced true IMC, this is hard to
> understand. Referring to it as "your inner ear" makes it
> seem like there's some inner instrument that you can just
> ignore and use the aircraft instruments instead. In fact,
> that "inner ear" is yourself. You KNOW FOR A FACT that you
> are turning right when the AI says you are turning left.
> You have to do what you know is WRONG because those damn
> instruments are telling you to and you know that doing the
> wrong thing can kill you. It's definitely tough, but it can
> be learned.
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-09-22, > wrote:
>
> It shoudl be *required* that every VFR pilot experience actual IMC in
> the three hours as part of their VFR training, to recognize and see the
> real dangers of IMC.

And isn't it amazing how you can be under the hood, fat and happy, then
enter a cloud and get disoriented?

> he not purposely focused on the intruments, he wouldn't have know which
> way was up. Never mind trying to handle the controls, it was
> overwhelming just experiencing it.

Which is why the instrument rating is so rewarding. You start out barely
able to fly under the hood and by the end you fly while experiencing
multiple instrument failures during an approach.

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Stefan]

Chris W schrieb:

> I haven't read too many of these reports so this may be just standard
> stuff, but it seems odd to me. They already determined the wings came
> off in flight, why does it mater if the engine quit or not. The end
> result would have still been the same.

Sometimes the obvious is not the whole story or even simply wrong. It's
essential to adhere to established procedures in investigations as well
as in the cockpit.

Stefan

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

The vestibular system won't detect a roll rate of around 2 degrees per
second. So, he could have found himself (or perceived himself) inverted,
and tried to pull rather than roll to upright. Another scenario is a
graveyard spiral, and again, a hard pull could over g the airplane. We'll
probably never know.

This is not so much an issue of how he dealt with the situation, but the
decision making process that lead him to take off into poor or deteriorating
weather. Again, it comes back to training and judgment.

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> It shoudl be *required* that every VFR pilot experience actual IMC in
> the three hours as part of their VFR training, to recognize and see the
> real dangers of IMC.

One reason that IMC isn't even required for an instrument rating (let alone
for a private pilot certificate) is that (benign) IMC is rare in many parts
of the country. In those places, an IMC requirement would make it all but
impossible to become a pilot.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> I wonder how many PP sans IFR rating actually
> have practiced simulated instrument flying and unusyal
> attitudes since their checkride?

Good question. I think all pilots should, if nothing else, regularly
practice instrument flying on a PC sim.

> Even good instrument rated pilots
> (the best ones) set personal minimums until they gain a certain
> number of hours of instrument flying to gain confidence....
> To maintain instrument
> currency you are required to fly approaches, holding
> patterns and so forth every six months (and that's bare minimum).
> If you are doing 10 minutes every 2 years during BFR you
> are a potential statistic.

That's not a valid comparison. Instrument-rated pilots need that much recent
experience primarily in order to fly approaches. (And the personal minima
chiefly address how low the ceiling and visibility can be for an approach.)
No one expects a non-instrument pilot to fly approaches or holds, or even to
multi-task well enough to do much navigation in IMC. Emergency preparedness
for accidental IMC encounters only involves enough skill to keep the plane
upright while maintaining some approximate heading and altitude until VMC is
found.

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 08:47:46 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>:

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> It shoudl be *required* that every VFR pilot experience actual IMC in
>> the three hours as part of their VFR training, to recognize and see the
>> real dangers of IMC.
>
>One reason that IMC isn't even required for an instrument rating (let alone
>for a private pilot certificate) is that (benign) IMC is rare in many parts
>of the country. In those places, an IMC requirement would make it all but
>impossible to become a pilot.
>

Wouldn't a requirement for IMC operation for a Private certificate
make it impossible for a CFI to recommend a student for examination?
If such a requirement were in effect, a CFII could be necessary.

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Wouldn't a requirement for IMC operation for a Private certificate
> make it impossible for a CFI to recommend a student for examination?
> If such a requirement were in effect, a CFII could be necessary.

I don't think you have to be a CIF to instruct a student in IMC. And in any
case, if the FAA were to change the rags to create a PP IMC requirement,
they could just make any necessary change to the CFI rules too.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> I don't think you have to be a CIF

Oops, overactive spell-checker. That was originally 'CFII'.

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:07:47 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Wouldn't a requirement for IMC operation for a Private certificate
>> make it impossible for a CFI to recommend a student for examination?
>> If such a requirement were in effect, a CFII could be necessary.
>
>I don't think you have to be a CIF to instruct a student in IMC.

What is a CIF?

>And in any case, if the FAA were to change the rags to create a PP IMC requirement,
>they could just make any necessary change to the CFI rules too.

If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
> no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
>> no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?
>
>Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
>given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
>purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.
>

In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
operations, not actually instructing in them?

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
>>> no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?
>>
>>Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
>>given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
>>purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.
>
> In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
> hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
> operations, not actually instructing in them?

There is always a sole PIC. A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
CFIs always need an instrument rating. As far as I know, there is no reason
that a CFI can't let a student manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is
logged as dual, but not for purposes of an instrument rating.

--Gary

[Roy Smith]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> There is always a sole PIC. A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
> CFIs always need an instrument rating. As far as I know, there is no reason
> that a CFI can't let a student manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is
> logged as dual, but not for purposes of an instrument rating.

I did plenty of that as a student pilot. I knew I wanted to start on my
instrument rating right away and my instructor was happy to fly in IMC. At
the point where I was almost done with my private, we agreed that if the
weather were ever IFR on a day we had a flight secheduled, rather than
canceling, we would just go out and play in the clouds.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "ktbr" == ktbr > writes:

ktbr> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Besides, being carbureted, a 150 will quit after only a few
>> seconds inverted. The NTSB should also look at the quality and
>> quantity of the simulated IMC time during his training.
>>
ktbr> The basic instrument flight instruction part of PP training
ktbr> is really not sufficient, nor is it intended to be for
ktbr> sustained flight into IMC.

Quite so. As those who have flown solo in IMC know, there is a huge
psychological difference between flying with a hood in sunshine and an
instructor and knowing what you are about to do, and blundering into
IMC with no warning and only yourself to get out of it. The hood
training for the PP can never really prepare one for the case of
blundering into IMC. Which is why on occasion I may chase a cloud and
wander a bit too close. Not every VFR pilot needs the IFR rating, but
every pilot does need some exposure to real IMC. Do it with an
instructor and learn to live another day.

--
Look, if you don't like my parties, you can leave in a huff. If that's
too soon, leave in a minute and a huff. If you can't find that, you
can leave in a taxi.
Groucho Marx

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "TP" == T o d d P a t t i s t <T> writes:

TP> ktbr > wrote:
>> Finding yourself in the dead middle of hard IMC with only 3
>> hours of training can be disasterous as this sad event
>> illustrates. If you think these 3 hours will save your life if
>> you get into a situation like that you are whistling past a
>> graveyard.

TP> If you think it's useless, what is the point of the training
TP> then?

Not entirely useless, but not entirely use-full either. What's the
point? Some hypocrisy in life is necessary for society to
continue. It's a convenient fiction that the 3 hours will bail all VFR
pilots out of a jam, just like the fiction that confiscating nail
clippers and shampoo will make airline flights safer.
--
"Hacking is like sex. You get in, you get out, and hope that you
didn't leave something that can be traced back to you."

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:06:27 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>> If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
>>>> no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?
>>>
>>>Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
>>>given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
>>>purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.
>>
>> In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
>> hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
>> operations, not actually instructing in them?
>
>There is always a sole PIC.

That's true.

>A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.

But in this case, would the "student" be able to log PIC time as is
normally authorized?

>CFIs always need an instrument rating.

That's not the way I read the regulations:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d0f9009b4cb05938f33c637fe339fb8f&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.8.1.2
§ 61.183 Eligibility requirements.
To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a
person must:

(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline
transport pilot certificate with:

(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to
the flight instructor rating sought; and

(2) An instrument rating, _or_ privileges on that person's pilot
certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating
sought, if applying for—

i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and
single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and
multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating;
or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.


Doesn't that '_or_' in '(2)' above mean there is an alternate way to
comply with instructor requirements sans an instrument rating?

>As far as I know, there is no reason that a CFI can't let a student
>manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is logged as dual, but not
>for purposes of an instrument rating.

[Bob Fry]

The Poison Theory

The poison theory attempts to provide an explanation for why motion
sickness and cybersickness occur from an evolutionary standpoint. The
theory suggests that the ingestion of poison causes physiological
effects involving the coordination of the visual, vestibular, and
other sensory input systems. These physiological effects act as an
early warning system which enhances survival by removing the contents
of the stomach.
--
For a sucessful technology, honesty must take precedence over public
relations for nature cannot be fooled.
Richard Feynman

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
>>> hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
>>> operations, not actually instructing in them?
>>
>>There is always a sole PIC.
>
> That's true.
>
>>A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
>
> But in this case, would the "student" be able to log PIC time as is
> normally authorized?

A pre-PP student can never log PIC time except when flying solo. With a PP
(or sport or recreational) license, you can log PIC time whenever you're the
sole manipulator of an aircraft for which you're rated. But you don't have
to be rated for the flight conditions; so you don't need an instrument
rating to log PIC time in IMC.

>>CFIs always need an instrument rating.
>
> That's not the way I read the regulations:
> § 61.183 Eligibility requirements...
> Doesn't that '_or_' in '(2)' above mean there is an alternate way to
> comply with instructor requirements sans an instrument rating?

The wording of 61.183b2 is notoriously unclear. But my understanding is that
it's meant to require an instrument rating (or else equivalent ATP
privileges) for the appropriate class and category of aircraft.

--Gary

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:10:50 -0400, "Ron Snipes" >
wrote:

>This accident was posted on the newsgroups right after it happened. Now
>published on the NTSB website, which gives us more info than the 6pm news.
>
>My thoughts and prayers go out to the family left behind, but with that
>said.....How can you throw everything you learned in Flight Training about
>Weather, out the window. I also considered a subject line of: Just how many
>G's does it take to rip the wings off a C-150? What a shame.

Actually it's very easy.
This is a typical case of VFR into IMC the pilot panicking (the I cant
see, I can't see tells that), gets disoriented, and losing control.
After that it's only a matter of time and not much of it before
something gets broken.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> One reason that IMC isn't even required for an instrument rating (let
alone
> for a private pilot certificate) is that (benign) IMC is rare in many
parts
> of the country. In those places, an IMC requirement would make it all but
> impossible to become a pilot.

On the other hand, I've seen level-5 thunderstorms come through and
technically it was still VFR... Not that I would have even pulled my
airplane out of the hangar at those times...

That's kind of the reason that I haven't been that serious about getting my
instrument rating... Around here, usually if the weather is bad enough to be
IFR, I don't really want to be up in it... Sometimes we get the mild IFR
conditions where it's just low clouds and such, but it sure does seem like
everytime I get weathered out of a flight, it's not somthing I would want to
be going up in even with an instument rating...

[Margy Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>>There is always a sole PIC. A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
>>CFIs always need an instrument rating. As far as I know, there is no reason
>>that a CFI can't let a student manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is
>>logged as dual, but not for purposes of an instrument rating.
>
>
> I did plenty of that as a student pilot. I knew I wanted to start on my
> instrument rating right away and my instructor was happy to fly in IMC. At
> the point where I was almost done with my private, we agreed that if the
> weather were ever IFR on a day we had a flight secheduled, rather than
> canceling, we would just go out and play in the clouds.
I still don't have an instrument rating, but I have 3 hours of actual
from my student pilot days. It's not bad experience for anyone.

Margy