178 Seconds to live VFR into IFR

Tantalum said:
...this tells me that we don't spend enough time flying by instruments in the PPL world. If you fly enough as a VFR pilot then eventually you are going to get into some real haze, between layers, night disorientation, etc... even if you are "legal VFR" you will eventually be effectively flying on instruments at some point

Why PPL spends SO LITTLE TIME focusing on proper instrument flying is beyond me. I get the basics of teaching stalls, etc., and having the 3 hr minimum hood time, but we'd make some huge safety advances in these accidents if we covered proper instrument flying in PPL.. I don't mean flying approaches and learning the ins and outs of the IFR world.. but any pilot should be able to keep the plane right side up and navigate themselves out of the clouds without an IR rating

To me the lack of proper instrument flying training the PPL world is akin to giving someone a drivers license after just having them learn how to turn the car on and off and make circles in a parking lot

/rant over. Sorry.
Click to expand...
No apology necessary from where I sit, I agree 100% with this. I do not advocating increasing the mandatory 3 hours for the PPL, but I do think that getting recurrent hood time every few months should be strongly encouraged by all instructors. It isn't just inadvertent VFR into IMC that is dangerous to pilots without adequate instrument skills, it's also conditions that are legally VFR but require being on the gauges to control the plane, such as flying over open water in summer haze or at night, basically the kinds of conditions that did in JFK Jr. The ability to safely navigate such conditions is something ALL pilots should develop and maintain, especially since they are often difficult to predict or anticipate, and avoiding them with 100% certainty would require adhering to VERY conservative personal minimums.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
But that doesn't change the fact that the 178 second "statistic" is bogus and it's a stupid alarmist video that seems more likely to do harm than good.
Click to expand...


Well, I would say that there are two competing interests at stake: 1) convincing pilots that entering IMC ill prepared is a risk not worth taking, and 2) helping pilots extricate themselves once they have done so. Hard to say whether it does more harm than good. It's a good question to ask, though.
 
PPC1052 said:
1) convincing pilots that entering IMC ill prepared is a risk not worth taking, and 2) helping pilots extricate themselves once they have done so
Click to expand...
..which, it's a catch-22 because if you are prepared to enter IMC (even if not legally) then you probably can extricate yourself just fine. Whereas, if you aren't prepared, then you also will have a terrible time getting out alive

I feel horrible that people had to die in this accident, but this to me should be the single biggest case study of "stupid pilot tricks" - the guy had a capable plane, with ATC guidance, and yet he still got himself out of sorts.. you have to wonder how this can happen

We had a thread about this recently. This one blows my mind. God bless the controllers..
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, I would say that there are two competing interests at stake: 1) convincing pilots that entering IMC ill prepared is a risk not worth taking, and 2) helping pilots extricate themselves once they have done so. Hard to say whether it does more harm than good. It's a good question to ask, though.
Click to expand...

To some extent, it will depend on the individual - Some pilots will think they have skills that they really don't - whether it is the ability to fly in real IMC, navigate around a thunderstorm, teach themselves aerobatics in a 172, or hop straight from the 152 into a twin with no additional training. I suspect those wouldn't be impressed with a scare video even if they bothered to watch it. On the other extreme are those that won't leave the ground with ceilings below 3500. They don't need a scare video. Then there is everyone else in between - we can rationalize our way into thinking that we won't end up in IMC - for example: the forecast for the other side of this overcast is good and it's safer to go over than to go under... Or, the clouds don't look THAT low. For those, some honest statistics or information along with recurring training just might make the difference. And, while a scare video / bad statistic might dissuade someone from deliberately penetrating IMC, I doubt that it will do much for someone who is convinced that they have a plan to not get into the IMC in the first place. We do things because we think we are not going to get caught.

There are a lot of VFR pilots who pack it in in IMC (20 fatal in 2015), but there are also those that make it out the other side - what is it that really makes the difference between the two groups? Luck? Panic? Skill level? Combination of those? And, how do you fix it? As you point out, there are two parts - not getting in the mess to begin with, and finding your way out if you do. Perhaps some real information on the thought process that got them into the soup? That would at least be interesting and something to reflect on compared to your own practices.

There are 10 types of people that understand binary - those that do, and those that don't.
 
Ryanb said:
I personally feel that it depends how good said VFR pilot is on instruments, as the 178 seconds won’t apply to all. Any competent pilot should be capable of keeping wings level and making a standard rate turn.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I'm instrument rated and current. I flew in actual yesterday and was vectored on course after take-off. Initiated a climbing right turn just before entering the clouds. It took all my training to keep the wings level on roll-out actively scanning and cross-checking. My whole body was screaming that I was still in a turn and I can see how if you're not prepared for that sensation it can really take you by surprise. The brain can get foggy in a hurry if you are SD'd and can't reconcile what your eyes are telling you with what you body is saying.
 
Tantalum said:
...this tells me that we don't spend enough time flying by instruments in the PPL world. If you fly enough as a VFR pilot then eventually you are going to get into some real haze, between layers, night disorientation, etc... even if you are "legal VFR" you will eventually be effectively flying on instruments at some point

Why PPL spends SO LITTLE TIME focusing on proper instrument flying is beyond me. I get the basics of teaching stalls, etc., and having the 3 hr minimum hood time, but we'd make some huge safety advances in these accidents if we covered proper instrument flying in PPL.. I don't mean flying approaches and learning the ins and outs of the IFR world.. but any pilot should be able to keep the plane right side up and navigate themselves out of the clouds without an IR rating

To me the lack of proper instrument flying training the PPL world is akin to giving someone a drivers license after just having them learn how to turn the car on and off and make circles in a parking lot

/rant over. Sorry.
Click to expand...

In the book The Killing Zone, the author referenced a program for initial pilots who did their instrument rating concurrently with their private. Seemed like a good option particularly for those on the pro-pilot track.
 
Last edited:
Both times I went inadvertent IMC was in 10,000 pound AH-1 with a working attitude indicator and IFR rating...PAR's were available and inadvertent was briefed on every mission...both in Cold war era Germany and as soon as the transponder went to 7700 a controlling authority was hailing on 121.5/243.0...conditions and mission placed us in the situation. The AH-1 the Army flew was not certified for IFR flight but was a stable platform and we took an Instrument ride every year, clear of clouds. At the time it was no big deal and no recourse against the Pilot or crew.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
No apology necessary from where I sit, I agree 100% with this. I do not advocating increasing the mandatory 3 hours for the PPL, but I do think that getting recurrent hood time every few months should be strongly encouraged by all instructors. It isn't just inadvertent VFR into IMC that is dangerous to pilots without adequate instrument skills, it's also conditions that are legally VFR but require being on the gauges to control the plane, such as flying over open water in summer haze or at night, basically the kinds of conditions that did in JFK Jr. The ability to safely navigate such conditions is something ALL pilots should develop and maintain, especially since they are often difficult to predict or anticipate, and avoiding them with 100% certainty would require adhering to VERY conservative personal minimums.
Click to expand...
Another possibility would be to require some hood time with each flight review.
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, I would say that there are two competing interests at stake: 1) convincing pilots that entering IMC ill prepared is a risk not worth taking, and 2) helping pilots extricate themselves once they have done so. Hard to say whether it does more harm than good. It's a good question to ask, though.
Click to expand...
I think the only ethical way to deal with that issue is to just tell the truth about the data, without exaggerating it one way or the other. The truth is that some non-instrument-rated pilots who enter clouds survive and some don't. I don't know the percentage who survive, but I do know that the 178-seconds number is an exaggeration. It implies that 100% of those who get in that situation will die as a result, because if any survived, then it would not be possible to calculate a finite average time of survival.
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, I would say that there are two competing interests at stake: 1) convincing pilots that entering IMC ill prepared is a risk not worth taking, and 2) helping pilots extricate themselves once they have done so. Hard to say whether it does more harm than good. It's a good question to ask, though.
Click to expand...
The problem is that once the video is exposed as false data, the respectability of the people presenting it goes down the tubes.
 
Palmpilot said:
Another possibility would be to require some hood time with each flight review.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that would be effective.

Keep in mind that the FAA used to understand the level of effort it took to maintain instrument proficiency, at least at the level we’re talking about here...the requirement for instrument currency used to include six hours of instrument time in the rolling six month period. Unless they’re getting that kind of training/practice, I don’t think the average VFR into IMC statistic is going to not be a statistic.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The problem is that once the video is exposed as false data, the respectability of the people presenting it goes down the tubes.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There's such a thing as an honest mistake. And anyone who says they have never made a mistake is a liar.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I don’t think that would be effective.

Keep in mind that the FAA used to understand the level of effort it took to maintain instrument proficiency, at least at the level we’re talking about here...the requirement for instrument currency used to include six hours of instrument time in the rolling six month period. Unless they’re getting that kind of training/practice, I don’t think the average VFR into IMC statistic is going to not be a statistic.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I think that eliminating the six-hour rule was a bad idea, and you could be right, but the level of proficiency required to extricate oneself from IMC is a lot lower than that required to handle the complexities of flying instrument procedures within IFR tolerances.
 
Ryanb said:
I personally feel that it depends how good said VFR pilot is on instruments, as the 178 seconds won’t apply to all. Any competent pilot should be capable of keeping wings level and making a standard rate turn.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should be able to keep wings level, but the few times I have taken non-instrument rated pilots into IMC and a number of Instrument training pilots with 10 or more hours of instrument time for the 1st time, Most of the time I see it takes them about 3 minutes to transition to the instruments, usually they start turning almost immediately upon enter IMC. If they can survive the 1st 3 minutes (most need help) they usually have transitioned to the instruments and do reasonably well after that.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
What impact does having synthetic vision have on this situation?
 
Challenged said:
What impact does having synthetic vision have on this situation?
Click to expand...
That would depend entirely on whether the pilot was looking out at nothingness, or inside at a screen. If he's looking inside, he has an artificial horizon, even on an old plane.
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe. I think that eliminating the six-hour rule was a bad idea, and you could be right, but the level of proficiency required to extricate oneself from IMC is a lot lower than that required to handle the complexities of flying instrument procedures within IFR tolerances.
Click to expand...
The law of exercise has to kick in somewhere...yeah, an hour a month may be more than it takes, but I guarantee that 20 minutes every two years won't make a dent in the statistics.
 
Ryanb said:
I personally feel that it depends how good said VFR pilot is on instruments, as the 178 seconds won’t apply to all. Any competent pilot should be capable of keeping wings level and making a standard rate turn.
Click to expand...
The only pilots to whom the 178 seconds apply are those who had no instrument flying experience at all, not even private-pilot hood training, who are flying an aircraft with no artificial horizon, no directional gyro, and no vertical-speed indicator, because those were the conditions in which that average was obtained.
 
Palmpilot said:
The only pilots to whom the 178 seconds apply are those who had no instrument flying experience at all, not even private-pilot hood training, who are flying an aircraft with no artificial horizon, no directional gyro, and no vertical-speed indicator, because those were the conditions in which that average was obtained.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget that they were flying a higher performance, slipperier airplane than most of them had ever flown, too.
 
Not too long ago, AOPA did this in a sim in one of their flying with new and old pilots with a variety of experience. Though not 3 min, most of them crashed.
 
So just speaking for myself as far as hood time goes, during my ppl training I didn't find the under the hood training the least bit difficult. Put the hood on, a CFI gives you some courses/altitudes to go to. You look at the panel and just make it happen. Not difficult. They even had me do unusual attitudes under the hood, again it didn't seem so difficult. It makes one wonder just why this IMC stuff is such a big deal, I had certainly seen the statistics and the dire warnings but always felt if I ever did inadvertently get into it that it shouldn't be a big deal. Now, I'm a big chicken when it comes to these things so I never did get myself into such a situation as a VFR pilot.

I'd say now that I've gone through the IFR training it's changed my perspective a bit. Yes holding course and altitude with wings level is easy- on it's own. Now try to pull up some charts or run through a checklist or some other thing that divides your attention and see how easy it is. Then fly into actual without the hood and realize how much of a subconscious cue the light you can see around the edge of your hood is. Now throw in the nervousness or just unease that would come from entering in IMC when you're not prepared and have nobody who can help you. I think it's that combination of things- that and not being ready for it that must get people.

One other thing I note from my PPL training- nobody at any point taught me how to shoot an approach. I know there are only so many things you can cram into a rating and that sort of thing is what the IR is supposed to teach you but I really think private pilots should have their instructors at least once show them how to set up their radios and just shoot a vectors to final ILS or RNAV approach. They don't need to know how to read the plates or know how to do a hold or anything like that, just hopefully enough that in an emergency they might remember how to set up their radio/GPS well enough that ATC could vector them around to intercept and hopefully fumble their way into a safe landing.
 
Last edited:
jstro said:
This 178 seconds to live length of time came out of a specific study, "The 180 degree Turn Experiment", published by the University of Illinois in 1954 and funded by the AOPA. 20 subjects were chosen for the study, all PP-ASAEL, none with an IR, spanning 30-1625 total hours in the air. They all flew a Bonanza with only airspeed indicator, altimeter, magnetic compass, turn indicator and engine instruments uncovered. Also the windows were darkened and the pilot wore goggles to greatly reduce outside visibility. And the Bonanza was loaded at its most rearward CG allowed. All pilots had to fly certain tasks including a 180 deg turn.
Click to expand...
In short, deck was stacked.
 
paflyer said:
In short, deck was stacked.
Click to expand...
Yup...in order to show that even the most inexperienced instrument pilot could safely get out of a IMC given the proper tools, they had to have a baseline.

With minimal training, all were able to successfully accomplish the tasks.
 
WannFly said:
i am doing IR training (slowly...but steadily :p) and i agree to this. i have about 5 hr of actual as on today and its no where close to wearing a hood. the first time i entered the cloud i was glued to the instrument and yet i couldnt shred the feeling that i was banking left. its hard to ignore your trusted body that has kept you alive for ages and focus on just what you are interpreting.
Click to expand...

That doesn't magically stop after your checkride, either.

My worst case was on departure, filed for 10,000 msl. Expected to be in the clouds around 6 or 6-1/2 and pop out around 9000 (field elevation was 828 msl). So instead I hit the soup just above 9000, and leveling off tripped my inner ear. I was sweating hard a d not oaying close enough attention to course or the radio, and may have wandered a little high. My eyes were locked on the AH and I was repeating to myself, "Believe the instruments! Believe the instruments!" Only lasted two or three eternities [OK, minutes!], then I was fine. Still remember it like it was this afternoon, but it had to be 6-7 years ago.

Now you've been warned. Go forth and fly safe!
 
First of all, flame on, I know I messed up and made a poor decision. Not afraid to admit it and learn from it. I was alone in the airplane, no passengers.

So I went VMC to IMC this weekend. Made a poor decision of trying to push it to an airport under marginal VFR. Got caught in the overcast as sky conditions deteriorated. I wasn't confident that turning around would put me back in VMC, so I elected to climb through it. Climbed straight ahead, no bank, for just over a minute. Popped out and climbed well above the clouds and headed towards an airport with VFR conditions. I was confident in my ability to fly under instruments, but obviously my decision making needs improvement to keep me out of those conditions to begin with. A humbling experience especially after reading some of the reports posted in this thread.
 
Palmpilot said:
Another possibility would be to require some hood time with each flight review.
Click to expand...
As long as flight reviews are only required every two years, I don't think that would be sufficient to maintain the needed proficiency. And considering that what is covered now in a flight review is at the discretion of the instructor, that would mean a major change in the guidance and regulations surrounding FRs.

I think it's better to just encourage it, along with practicing other skills frequently, during recurrent training with a CFI.
 
Ronbonjovi said:
First of all, flame on, I know I messed up and made a poor decision. Not afraid to admit it and learn from it. I was alone in the airplane, no passengers.

So I went VMC to IMC this weekend. Made a poor decision of trying to push it to an airport under marginal VFR. Got caught in the overcast as sky conditions deteriorated. I wasn't confident that turning around would put me back in VMC, so I elected to climb through it. Climbed straight ahead, no bank, for just over a minute. Popped out and climbed well above the clouds and headed towards an airport with VFR conditions. I was confident in my ability to fly under instruments, but obviously my decision making needs improvement to keep me out of those conditions to begin with. A humbling experience especially after reading some of the reports posted in this thread.
Click to expand...
How did you know there wasn’t an airliner in that cloud? Unless you’ve got an IFR clearance, you really can’t rely on the “see and be seen” thing in IMC, so it’s not just about disorientation and loss of control.
 
Tantalum said:
..which, it's a catch-22 because if you are prepared to enter IMC (even if not legally) then you probably can extricate yourself just fine. Whereas, if you aren't prepared, then you also will have a terrible time getting out alive

I feel horrible that people had to die in this accident, but this to me should be the single biggest case study of "stupid pilot tricks" - the guy had a capable plane, with ATC guidance, and yet he still got himself out of sorts.. you have to wonder how this can happen

We had a thread about this recently. This one blows my mind. God bless the controllers..
Click to expand...


This accident haunts me because he went down 4 miles from my house. He was just short of 26 at 3CK. Unclear if he was headed there or not. Taking your daughters and an innocent kid with you.

He didn't just happen into IMC and get in trouble turning around. He flew in IMC for miles. Entitlement mentality?

Would the stress impact your phraseology like that? He was in so far over his head and seemingly clueless. He didn't even understand basic phraseology.

Too bad that tracon controller didn't say "3CD suggest right turn heading 270 vectors to vfr conditions and PWK" or something.

The pilot was at the controls but obviously nobody was in control.
 
Vince R said:
How did you know there wasn’t an airliner in that cloud? Unless you’ve got an IFR clearance, you really can’t rely on the “see and be seen” thing in IMC, so it’s not just about disorientation and loss of control.
Click to expand...

Huh? ATC would have told the airliner pilot and assigned a course/altitude deviation. Would apply to any plane talking to ATC.

Now, if he had run into another errant VFR pilot lost in the same cloud, well some days luck just isn’t on your side.

Once I was around 9,000 in the middle of nowhere Utah and a Lear (or something that looks like that) came hauling up probably less than 3 miles from me and disappeared into some clouds. All I could think was that I sure hoped he was talking to someone because that was a very rare case of me not being on FF.
 
Vince R said:
How did you know there wasn’t an airliner in that cloud? Unless you’ve got an IFR clearance, you really can’t rely on the “see and be seen” thing in IMC, so it’s not just about disorientation and loss of control.
Click to expand...

That’s what TCAS is for. If you run into another bugsmasher doing the same thing then it was your time. Too many people die trying to maintain VFR scud running when the safest thing to do is climb up into the clouds and put some distance between you and terra firma. I’ve had very experienced friends (10,000+ hours) flying IFR equipped airplanes to IFR airports that slammed into mountains because they were trying to maintain VFR instead of just going into the clouds.
 
Vince R said:
How did you know there wasn’t an airliner in that cloud? Unless you’ve got an IFR clearance, you really can’t rely on the “see and be seen” thing in IMC, so it’s not just about disorientation and loss of control.
Click to expand...

I was monitoring the local approach and like someone else stated, hopefully the airliner would have TCAS and be talking to ATC, but you are definitely right. Like I said know it was a poor decision, but at the time I felt like it was the best decision I could make versus scud running a few hundred feet above the ground.
 
Ronbonjovi said:
I was monitoring the local approach and like someone else stated, hopefully the airliner would have TCAS and be talking to ATC, but you are definitely right. Like I said know it was a poor decision, but at the time I felt like it was the best decision I could make versus scud running a few hundred feet above the ground.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that a precautionary landing is an option as well.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
Would the stress impact your phraseology like that? He was in so far over his head and seemingly clueless. He didn't even understand basic phraseology.
Click to expand...

Yes. His radio transmissions clearly exhibit symptoms that he was task saturated and didn't have enough computing power left over for clear sentences and word selection.

Don't let that one haunt you. That pilot was criminally negligent, IMHO. It's easy to avoid replicating his mistakes. It's the other accidents where you can see yourself making the same decisions that the accident pilot did that you should focus on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top