Angry [More Info]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:10:54 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2005-12-29, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
Plus the effects on
your inner ear seem to be the most pronounced at this point too

I've never noted that in my instrument flying.

Are you sure? The pitch changes in the departure phase tend to be
greater, as well as acceleration effects. In most light planes, 10
degrees pitch up makes your initial climb. In the enroute phase or
approach phase, pitch changes are usually nowhere near 10 degrees or
large changes of speed in a short period of time while trying to
transition from looking out the windscreen to being on instruments. The
busiest times I've ever had single pilot IFR have been taking off in a
Bonanza in low IFR conditions to add to this. I'm not surprised that
non-proficient in IMC pilots get screwed up and crash on departure.

No question but that pitch changes may be greater on takeoff than enroute.
But I've not noted any equilibrium problems while flying IMC. Maybe that's
from practice relying on the instruments and ignoring body cues?



The equipment you're flying has much to do with it, too. I'd much rather
be in a high-performance aircraft in night IMC in the mountains than in a
C172, though.

I would out of principle too, but there's no denying it's a lot less
busy in a C172 especially on departure!

I suppose. But I don't seem to have a problem handling the few "extra"
tasks in my Mooney.


But I was wondering about the specifics of Hilton's objection to this
flight, in view of the fact that he wrote he was a CFII so shouldn't have a
problem with the IMC.

If I'm not mistaken, it was in the mountains in a fairly marginal plane
(a C172 loaded with people is pretty marginal when it comes to climb
rate). I'm not sure I'd want to launch at night in the mountains in IMC
in a C172 either! I'd want something that could climb _well_ and had
good instrumentation.

Concur!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On 2005-12-29, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
No question but that pitch changes may be greater on takeoff than enroute.
But I've not noted any equilibrium problems while flying IMC. Maybe that's
from practice relying on the instruments and ignoring body cues?

Ignoring them isn't the problem, but you can still feel them and it adds
yet another thing on top of an already busy time. Added to this that it
is winter, it is night, there's a possibility of winds generating
turbulence off the terrain, and being winter - icing. I can hardly blame
a CFII for making a no-go decision in such conditions. It's nothing to
do with proficiency or 'being uncomfortable in night IMC'. It's a matter
of adding up the risk factors and finding the risk factors are too high
for a likely successful flight.

I'm not entirely sure where these events took place, but even with our
mild climate here, I wouldn't launch in day IMC here in a light plane
because the freezing level is often below 2000 feet - even if I had
20,000 hours experience. From my 1000 hours or so experience of flying
in the United States, much of it outside the gulf coast seems to have
fairly low icing conditions in the winter.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2005-12-30, Dylan Smith wrote:
I'm not entirely sure where these events took place, but even with our
mild climate here, I wouldn't launch in day IMC here in a light plane
because the freezing level is often below 2000 feet

.... scratch that, I've just read the quoted NTSB report and the
temperature was far too high for icing. Given a Bonanza with decent
instrumentation and an IFR flight plan, I'd have probably gone too.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2005-12-30, Dylan Smith wrote:
I'm not entirely sure where these events took place, but even with our
mild climate here, I wouldn't launch in day IMC here in a light plane
because the freezing level is often below 2000 feet

... scratch that, I've just read the quoted NTSB report and the
temperature was far too high for icing. Given a Bonanza with decent
instrumentation and an IFR flight plan, I'd have probably gone too.


Of course, the problem here is that a VFR pilot, who didn't even have
the ink dry on his PP Certificate, launched at night, in lousy
conditions, into mountainous terrain.

Darwin, anyone?

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:48:43 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2005-12-29, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
No question but that pitch changes may be greater on takeoff than enroute.
But I've not noted any equilibrium problems while flying IMC. Maybe that's
from practice relying on the instruments and ignoring body cues?

Ignoring them isn't the problem, but you can still feel them

For whatever reason, I just don't feel the equilibrium problems that you
and others have described. Perhaps "ignore" is the wrong word to use, but
it has not ever been an issue for me, even during training.


and it adds
yet another thing on top of an already busy time. Added to this that it
is winter, it is night, there's a possibility of winds generating
turbulence off the terrain, and being winter - icing. I can hardly blame
a CFII for making a no-go decision in such conditions. It's nothing to
do with proficiency or 'being uncomfortable in night IMC'. It's a matter
of adding up the risk factors and finding the risk factors are too high
for a likely successful flight.

I did mention the possibility of icing in another post. But I still have
not seen any note from Hilton as to why, as a CFII (he pointed out), *HE*
would not have made that trip in the reported weather conditions.

Clearly one should not have gone VFR!


I'm not entirely sure where these events took place, but even with our
mild climate here, I wouldn't launch in day IMC here in a light plane
because the freezing level is often below 2000 feet - even if I had
20,000 hours experience. From my 1000 hours or so experience of flying
in the United States, much of it outside the gulf coast seems to have
fairly low icing conditions in the winter.

I agree that you have to assess your equipment and experience before
launching into any type of conditions. But this morning in eastern ME, the
freezing level was well above the MEA. I would have no hesitation about
flying under those circumstances.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron wrote:
I did mention the possibility of icing in another post. But I still have
not seen any note from Hilton as to why, as a CFII (he pointed out), *HE*
would not have made that trip in the reported weather conditions.

Sorry, Ron, been really busy here with a new software release, etc...

I thought of a long reply that included the risks of flying, how people
needed to be really good at understanding themselves, the weather, the
aircraft systems, etc etc etc, but I guess it boils down to this:

Let's assume a 172 and IFR (which the accident pilot wasn't): Night, IMC
(cloudy, rainy, not benign fog), single-engine, hills which have claimed
lives, plane full of people (more chance of distraction), etc. Each of
these reduce your safety margin, or increase your risk. It's just not very
well stacked in my favor. You say you would do it, what if you had an
engine failure? You have no out, you and your passengers would likely die
or at best be very serously injured. I don't like those odds. Others might
be OK with them, others might put more faith in their engines than I do.
Allow me to quote a couple of sentences from the latest Nall Report (2004):

"Accidents in such conditions, for example, adverse weather or at night, are
more likely to result in fatality."
"...only 14.0 percent of daytime accidents resulted in fatalities. At night,
more than one in three (36.1 percent) was fatal."

I fly at night, I fly IMC, I never fly IMC at night, and definitely not over
hills in a single engine with a 1956 172 (assuming it did not have the newer
6-pack configuration). You're welcome to say I'm too conservative, but
there you go. I know of a very experienced test pilot, Reno Race racer who
will not fly single-engine at night period, even in perfect VMC conditions.

Hilton

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:51:58 GMT, "Hilton" wrote:

and definitely not over
hills in a single engine with a 1956 172 (assuming it did not have the newer
6-pack configuration). You're welcome to say I'm too conservative, but
there you go.

That clarifies a lot for me.

And no, I would not say that you're too conservative. Not knowing more
about the route than looking at it using FliteStar, I, too, would not fly
it night IMC in a 1956 C172.

But you're unadorned statement that started this particular thread left me
wondering about *your* reasons.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Hilton wrote:

I fly at night, I fly IMC, I never fly IMC at night, and definitely not over
hills in a single engine with a 1956 172 (assuming it did not have the newer
6-pack configuration). You're welcome to say I'm too conservative, but
there you go. I know of a very experienced test pilot, Reno Race racer who
will not fly single-engine at night period, even in perfect VMC conditions.

I also know many who would never go up "in any of those little planes" and
would prefer to sit on their couch all day long hiding from any perceived
risk the world may hand out.

This is certainly not meant to be a slam on your personal limits. My point
is simply that it is a matter of perspective and a mitigation of the risks
involved.

I have had discussions with high-time corporate pilots who have had the
fortune to build their careers behind the yoke of a state-of-the-art, glass
cockpit corporate jet. These pilots also will not fly single engine IFR,
day or night.

How much of this rejection is based on the real risk versus how much is
based on emotion? It is certainly conceivable to me that a pilot with
many thousands of hours in a very well equipped aircraft may have forgotten
how to mitigate the risks of night IMC because they haven't done so in many
years. Thus, they shun night IMC out of emotion, rather than logic.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
How much of this rejection is based on the real risk versus how much is
based on emotion?

Well, in the post to which you replied, I quoted hard statistics, so that's
real risk; remember people had to die to create those fatality statistics.
Secondly, tell me how you would handle an engine failure over the unlit
hills in the clouds (that 'cover' the hills), at night, IMC, etc etc etc.

It seems real to me.

Hilton

Hilton wrote:

snip
Secondly, tell me how you would handle an engine failure over the unlit
hills in the clouds (that 'cover' the hills), at night, IMC, etc etc etc.

What about over the hills in low IMC during the day?

To me the risks seem the same, yet many pilots only single out night IMC as
the boogy man in single engine aviation.

In terms of answering your question, I would handle an engine failure at
night the same as day IMC. I should point out that I do fuel plan
meticulously prior to *every* flight I make and I fly my own
high-performance, 150 hours since rebuilt engine aircraft that is
meticulously maintained, so as to further reduce the odds of an engine
failure.

However, I don't mean to drift this thread away from your original topic,
with which we share the same reaction.


--
Peter