MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Your Google is as good as mine.So what do the post 1989 numbers look like?
Your Google is as good as mine.So what do the post 1989 numbers look like?
We’re those incidents related to imc??Ok...here’s some statistics from a 1989 NTSB study of 361 accidents...
And now once again you can be a pilot with zero hood/instrument training if you fly an LSA.
Your Google is as good as mine.
Pilots lose their cool, panic sets in, so level of ‘competency’ may go out the window.Any competent pilot should be capable of keeping wings level and making a standard rate turn.
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=uhp_thesesWe’re those incidents related to imc??
No it isn't.
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2011/media/MarApr2011CruiseControl.pdfSo what do the post 1989 numbers look like?
Yes, it is. I will look it up for you tomorrow if you don’t find it by then, but I’m not going to do it right this minute.
See FAR 61.93 (e) 12. Requires training on instruments before solo xc for all student pilots flying single engine airplanes. This covers both PPL and SPL students, but doesn’t impose a time minimum.
FAR 61.93(e) 12
"For student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate, the provisions of this paragraph only apply when receiving training for cross-country flight in an airplane that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS."
^this^Pilots lose their cool, panic sets in, so level of ‘competency’ may go out the window.
Remember anyone this recent (12/2015) accident in Piper Lance in which the family of 5 perished outside of Bakersfield, CA. He lasted just about 3 mins after entering clouds. He had 270 hrs, 3 hrs under the hood practice and even 1 hr of actual IMC time.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Agreed. Only if Vh is over 87. Which it is for just about every modern LSA.
BTW, I used to have an airplane that was self-leveling, like a balsa model airplane. If one flew into IMC in it, he could survive if he refrained from touching the stick and put feet on the floor. Coincidentally, it had no gyroscopic instruments at all, not even T&B. I was always wondering why all airplanes are not built like that. In my Mooney, it's 100% death spiral if one releases all the controls.Additionally, they used pilots with zero instruments. Pilots were required to fly without visual reference using only their kinesthetic senses.
BTW, I used to have an airplane that was self-leveling, like a balsa model airplane.
Not pilots without an instrument rating, pilots with absolutely no instrument training of any form whatsoever.none with an IR,
Kennedy had passed the instrument written and "On April 5, 1999, the pilot returned to FSI to begin an airplane instrument rating course. During the instrument training, the pilot satisfactorily completed the first 12 of 25 lesson plans."
Try putting your hands in your lap and using rudder to keep the turn needle centered.BTW, I used to have an airplane that was self-leveling, like a balsa model airplane. If one flew into IMC in it, he could survive if he refrained from touching the stick and put feet on the floor. Coincidentally, it had no gyroscopic instruments at all, not even T&B. I was always wondering why all airplanes are not built like that. In my Mooney, it's 100% death spiral if one releases all the controls.
Which is why I like the technique defined and trained in the study...it relies on the inherent stability of the airplane rather than very perishable skills.I find hoodwork a common weak area during flight reviews. I would say about 50% of them have trouble with it. When you narrow the sample size down to weekend warriors who are over about 50-60 years old, it is more like >90%. This of course, is only my personal experience and may not extrapolate.
BTDT.It is impossible to convince a VFR pilot of how unnerving it is to go from VFR to zero vis instantly. No fuzzy view of the ground. No sense of movement. Just noise. Total sensory unfamiliarity in a familiar cockpit.
So what do the post 1989 numbers look like?
Much like the reason pilots think NDB approaches are hard...because that’s what they’ve been told and how they’ve been trained, therefore they end up BEING hard.I wonder how much those numbers are skewed by the psychological effect that that video has on those pilots who wonder into the clouds and now think that they are going to die in 178 seconds. Self fulfilling prophesy?
Much like the reason pilots think NDB approaches are hard...because that’s what they’ve been told and how they’ve been trained, therefore they end up BEING hard.
It is impossible to convince a VFR pilot of how unnerving it is to go from VFR to zero vis instantly. No fuzzy view of the ground. No sense of movement. Just noise. Total sensory unfamiliarity in a familiar cockpit. Next time an instructor hands you a hood? Don't peek. Fly the instruments!
Yeah, tell that to the many dead pilots (and their innocent passengers) where the NTSB has ruled "continued VFR flight into instrument conditions."Not pilots without an instrument rating, pilots with absolutely no instrument training of any form whatsoever.
None.
Zip, zero, nada, zilch.
As in ain't never been under a hood before.
Ever.
And, once they had just a little hood time and training, they were all able to make the 180 using the instruments without problems.
But!
178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171...
...9 8 7 6 5 4 you open your mouth to scream because you have just watched the most ********tiest aviation video ever released.
So do you think yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater helps, too?Yeah, tell that to the many dead pilots (and their innocent passengers) where the NTSB has ruled "continued VFR flight into instrument conditions."
Not the same thing, as you are well aware. And consider the era from which the film originates; it's over the top, ain't nobody saying it's not, but as others have mentioned, if you suffer instantaneous loss of visual cues, you may not have long to live if you don't immediately recognize it, and go to instruments.So do you think yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater helps, too?
Or maybe “The sky is falling!”
Is that like the envelope protection feature in the GFC500 and GFC700?Like RC planes with SAFE technology built into the receiver. Can’t overbank, can’t go inverted. Can’t spin. I use SAFE mode on my Timber for dusk flying. The lighting system is awesome on that thing.
In theory you could build that plane, and in case of an engine out it would auto land at the nearest airport, or steer to the clearest looking terrain and pull the chute taking into account current winds.
In theory that could be built. At which point you don’t really need pilots anymore.
But the thrust of the video is a scare tactic. It has absolutely nothing to do with solving the problem.Not the same thing, as you are well aware. And consider the era from which the film originates; it's over the top, ain't nobody saying it's not, but as others have mentioned, if you suffer instantaneous loss of visual cues, you may not have long to live if you don't immediately recognize it, and go to instruments.
https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/...hash=C52F88B38FD95CB7C0A43F3B587A12E2692A8502Inadvertent twice in my life...sort of wonder how they come up with those numbers...
Not the same thing, as you are well aware. And consider the era from which the film originates; it's over the top, ain't nobody saying it's not, but as others have mentioned, if you suffer instantaneous loss of visual cues, you may not have long to live if you don't immediately recognize it, and go to instruments.
Flying in IMC is a lot harder than VMC and results in fatalities - about the same number of fatalities as stall/spins.Yeah, tell that to the many dead pilots (and their innocent passengers) where the NTSB has ruled "continued VFR flight into instrument conditions."