Cirrus Lands via Parachute in Nantucket

Matt Whiting wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:00:07 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

No, I think the CFIs are just using the discretion that the AC
61-98A allows
them. The first question they ask is generally, "What kind of
flying do you
do." Since I take my BFRs at the FBO on the base I'm based at, they
all know
the Fly Baby. I think they figure out that fifteen minutes under
the hood won't
do me a durn bit of good.
That is true, but you must admit that your brand of flying is a
pretty small segment of the overall private pilot segment. I
personally believe that I'm obligated to maintain proficiency in all
operations required in the Private and Instrument PTS documents. I
have a similar obligation to maintain proficiency with respect to my
PE license. The requirement is codified in case of the PE and not,
as best I know, with respect to my pilot certificate. However, even
if no FAR requires me to maintain proficiency relative to what was
required to obtain my certificate, it simply is common sense to me to
do so.

Certainly; I think we're more agreeing than disagreeing. My comments
were aimed
at the party (not you) who was claiming that any level of IFR
expertise less
than that required for the Private check ride was unacceptable.
Flying solo all
the time DOES lead to bad habits, and I use the BFR to get them
swatted down a
bit. The fact that my BFRs never include hood work is an indication
that the
local CFIs agree that it's not necessary, for the flying I do.

Yes, but a Cirrus pilot absolutely should be checked for basic
instrument competency (180 turn, S&L, and 500 fpm climbs and descents).

I should elaborate that I'm not just picking on Cirrus here. I would
say the above for any high performance GA airplane.

Matt

On Aug 22, 1:05 am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Certainly; I think we're more agreeing than disagreeing. My comments were aimed
at the party (not you) who was claiming that any level of IFR expertise less
than that required for the Private check ride was unacceptable.

Actually, I agree with you that there are unusual exceptions to the
general rule that I stated. There's an exception in cases where
there's no possibility that emergency instument-flight skill could be
useful.

For most pilots, though--and certainly for the particular flight
that's been under discussion here--it would be irresponsible to act as
PIC without having maintained private-pilot proficiency at basic
instrument flying. What I find especially distrubing is that some
pilots have been arguing that it's ok for the typical pilot to fly for
months or years with no effort to practice instrument flying, merely
because the FAA does not spell out how much practice is required to
stay proficient.

Matt,

If flying in a manner that just meets the MINIMUM standard to achieve a
pilot certificate in the US is what you consider "perfect and
infallible",

Ok, one more try, then I'll give up: Im my experience (and I passed the
same rides on the first try), there's a VAST difference between doing
basic instrument flight as required for VFR pilots under the hood or with
a CFI present, and flying in the clouds with no one but yourself present,
fully knowing you have gotten yourself into a situation that a) you
shouldn't be, b) you aren't legal to be in and c) has a very high
potential to kill you.

If you have the nerves of steel not to see a difference there, I can't
help it, but my view is supported by the accident statistics with
overwhelming clarity. VFR flight into IMC is a leading accident cause. Ask
yourself why that might be. Then try to pull another "Ha, ha, ha" on me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

For most pilots, though--and certainly for the particular flight
that's been under discussion here--it would be irresponsible to act as
PIC without having maintained private-pilot proficiency at basic
instrument flying.


Care to explain why VFR into IMC is one of the leading accident causes?
How do you explain the very obvious disconnect between what you
postulate a regular, average pilot's abilities to be - and reality?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Aug 22, 9:23 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
For most pilots, though--and certainly for the particular flight
that's been under discussion here--it would be irresponsible to act as
PIC without having maintained private-pilot proficiency at basic
instrument flying.

Care to explain why VFR into IMC is one of the leading accident causes?
How do you explain the very obvious disconnect between what you
postulate a regular, average pilot's abilities to be - and reality?

Yes, I'm glad to explain. You're confusing competence with perfection.
Private-pilot competence at instrument flying means this: if a pilot
with that competence accidentally enters IMC, and she realizes she's
in IMC and tries to fly by instruments, and the conditions aren't
complicated (that is, there's no icing, TS, proximity to challenging
terrain, etc.), then the pilot can fly the plane with only a small
chance of making a fatal mistake. But given many such occurrences,
that small chance will sometimes manifest itself, so there will still
be some crashes.

In addition, many (perhaps the large majority) of the VFR-into-IMC
crashes result because the pilot did NOT maintain basic instrument
competence, or because the accidentally-encountered instrument
conditions were NOT uncomplicated.

So there's no disconnect at all between my statement above and the
occurrence of some VFR-into-IMC accidents. My statement in no way
implies that such accidents can never occur, even for competent pilots.

then the pilot can fly the plane with only a small
chance of making a fatal mistake. But given many such occurrences,
that small chance will sometimes manifest itself, so there will still
be some crashes.

"Many such occurences"??? What do you base that statement on? Pilots
(competent ones, at that) regularly fly into clouds while VFR?

In addition, many (perhaps the large majority) of the VFR-into-IMC
crashes result because the pilot did NOT maintain basic instrument
competence, or because the accidentally-encountered instrument
conditions were NOT uncomplicated.

So the majority of pilots is not competent? Hmm.

As far as can see, the disconnect is still there. And I also think it's
at the heart of this discussion.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Aug 22, 9:19 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Matt,

If flying in a manner that just meets the MINIMUM standard to achieve a
pilot certificate in the US is what you consider "perfect and
infallible",

Ok, one more try, then I'll give up: Im my experience (and I passed the
same rides on the first try), there's a VAST difference between doing
basic instrument flight as required for VFR pilots under the hood or with
a CFI present, and flying in the clouds with no one but yourself present,
fully knowing you have gotten yourself into a situation that a) you
shouldn't be, b) you aren't legal to be in and c) has a very high
potential to kill you.

I completely agree. There is indeed a vast difference. IMC is indeed
harder.

But no one has been saying that because you can fly with foggles to
PTS standards, you can therefore fly in IMC to PTS standards. Rather,
the claim is just that if you can fly with foggles to PTS standards,
then you can very probably manage to keep the plane upright for a few
minutes in roughly straight and roughly level flight in uncomplicated
IMC. Flying to PTS standards is much HARDER than what you have to do
to turn around and head vaguely north (say) in order to get back to
nearby VMC.

my view is supported by the accident statistics with overwhelming clarity.

Not even close. Look at the 2006 Nall Report. There were a total of 49
fatal weather accidents. The report says that "most" were VMC into
IMC--let's say about 30. Now, how many of those involved a PTS-
proficient pilot in uncomplicated IMC? We don't know, but if half of
those crashes involved challenging IMC, and if (independently) half
involved non-proficient pilots (say, ones who never practice
instrument flying after getting their certificate), then we're down to
7 or 8 accidents involving a proficient pilot in uncomplicated IMC.

Of course, that's just a guess. The actual number could be lower (to a
minimum of zero) or higher (to a maximum of 49). But unless you have
some additional data, there is no "overwhelming clarity"--indeed, no
evidence at all--that more than a handful of accidents occur when a
PTS-proficient pilot inadvertantly enters uncomplicated IMC. Instead,
the statistics are consistent with the claim that a PTS-proficient
pilot can very probably manage to fly out of simple IMC. Of course,
there's no guarantee. Competence does not imply perfection, and even a
competent pilot has a small chance of making a fatal mistake in ANY
phase of flight.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:23:22 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

For most pilots, though--and certainly for the particular flight
that's been under discussion here--it would be irresponsible to act as
PIC without having maintained private-pilot proficiency at basic
instrument flying.

Care to explain why VFR into IMC is one of the leading accident causes?
How do you explain the very obvious disconnect between what you
postulate a regular, average pilot's abilities to be - and reality?

Actually, VFR into VMC *is* a leading accident cause, but the rate is lower than
the leading cause by nearly an order of magnitude. Though it depends on how you
lump together causes, really.

As many of you now, I've done an in-depth analysis of homebuilt accidents in the
1998-2004 timeframe. As a Control Group, I did a similar analysis of Cessna
172/Cessna 210 accidents.

Here's how my results came out:

Cause Percent
General Pilot Error 52.5%
Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation 8.9%
VFR to IFR 5.2%
Undetermined Loss of Power 4.7%
Maintenance Error 4.6%
Other Mechanical 4.2%
Engine Mechanical 3.7%
Buzzing 2.7%
Inadequate Preflight 1.6%
Carb Ice 1.2%
Fuel System 0.9%
Fuel Contamination 0.5%
Manufacturer Error 0.3%
Other 6.8% (lumps in 12 less-common events like
midairs, pilot incapacitation, etc.)

"General Pilot Error" in my analysis includes any accident that stemmed from the
pilot's improper use of stick-and-rudder skills, including the judgement aspects
(undershoots, overshoots, etc.).

So about 5% of the 172/210 accidents were due to an attempt to continue VFR
flight into IFR conditions.

I don't know how much different the Cirrus would be than my control group, but
my cursory look over a couple of years seems to show it's similar. Cases where
the CAPS was used...or where the CAPS could/should have been used... are still
outnumbered by the instances of overshoots/undershoots, loss of control on
rollout, brake fires, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

On Aug 22, 10:30 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
In addition, many (perhaps the large majority) of the VFR-into-IMC
crashes result because the pilot did NOT maintain basic instrument
competence, or because the accidentally-encountered instrument
conditions were NOT uncomplicated.

So the majority of pilots is not competent? Hmm.

No, that doesn't follow at all! Surely the nonproficient pilots would
be OVERREPRESENTED in the sample consisting of fatal crashes! So your
extrapolation to the general pilot population is completely spurious.

Recently, posted:

On Aug 22, 9:23 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
For most pilots, though--and certainly for the particular flight
that's been under discussion here--it would be irresponsible to act
as PIC without having maintained private-pilot proficiency at basic
instrument flying.

Care to explain why VFR into IMC is one of the leading accident
causes? How do you explain the very obvious disconnect between what
you postulate a regular, average pilot's abilities to be - and
reality?

Yes, I'm glad to explain. You're confusing competence with perfection.
Private-pilot competence at instrument flying means this: if a pilot
with that competence accidentally enters IMC, and she realizes she's
in IMC and tries to fly by instruments, and the conditions aren't
complicated (that is, there's no icing, TS, proximity to challenging
terrain, etc.), then the pilot can fly the plane with only a small
chance of making a fatal mistake. But given many such occurrences,
that small chance will sometimes manifest itself, so there will still
be some crashes.

In addition, many (perhaps the large majority) of the VFR-into-IMC
crashes result because the pilot did NOT maintain basic instrument
competence, or because the accidentally-encountered instrument
conditions were NOT uncomplicated.

Are you implying that VFR-only pilots regularly fly into IMC, and as a
result the odds are that they will eventually crash? If so, please support
that notion with some data. If you are implying that there are "many"
occurances of competent VFR-only pilots flying into IMC and that the
"small chance" that applies to the group-at-large affects the likelihood
that there will be "some crashes", please supply a reference to some
supporting data.

I am unaware of any data that documents the number of occurances of pilots
inadvertently venturing into IMC, and without that number, it would seem
difficult to support any notions of probability bases solely on the number
of crashes. OTOH, the data on the survivability of non-IFR pilots in IMC
has been presented numerous times in this ng, and it appears to refute
either of your notions of probability, so if you have information to the
contrary, I, for one, would like to see it.

Neil