N21480 VFR into IMC

ahmad

ahmad

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
477
Location
S Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
Midwest Aviator

Terrible tragedy. Guy had been flying since 2007. was scudrunning and flew into the clouds at 1600 ft. One fatality and apparently one survived.
 
The FAA needs to get away from teaching student pilots to fly like somebody with 40 hours of instrument instruction and who meets instrument recency requirements.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The FAA needs to get away from teaching student pilots to fly like somebody with 40 hours of instrument instruction and who meets instrument recency requirements.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Wonder how many make the conscious decision to scud run because they got a little hood time during PPL training.
 
luvflyin said:
Hmm. Wonder how many make the conscious decision to scud run because they got a little hood time during PPL training.
Click to expand...
I doubt they did that, but most probably mishandle the controls and crash because of the way they were trained during that hood time.
 
Last edited:
There's an awful lot of speculation in that video without much stated about the actual weather conditions, but one general principle to keep in mind is that if you scud run towards the coast in marginal conditions, they're usually more marginal when you get there.
 
I can't blame the FAA for this one. This was poor ADM in my opinion. 1000 ft agl and need to descend? That's not good.
 
ahmad said:
I can't blame the FAA for this one. This was poor ADM in my opinion. 1000 ft agl and need to descend? That's not good.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that the pilot’s response to going into the clouds (destabilizing the airplane and maneuvering into a crash) was proper?
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you’re saying that the pilot’s response to going into the clouds (destabilizing the airplane and maneuvering into a crash) was proper?
Click to expand...


huh?
I said poor ADM led to the crash. He should have been on the ground with that kind of weather and his ratings or lack of it.
 
ahmad said:
huh?
I said poor ADM led to the crash. He should have been on the ground with that kind of weather and his ratings or lack of it.
Click to expand...
VFR into IMC is going to happen. I doubt there’s anything we can do about that. But when the FAA says the best way to deal with it is with perishable skills that probably haven’t been exercised or trained recently, that certainly contributes.
 
“Proper” is not the adjective I would use. I would say, all too common for inadvertent VFR into IFR.
upload_2023-3-28_8-21-54.jpeg
This guy managed to rip the wings off.
Parachute pull FTW.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The FAA needs to get away from teaching student pilots to fly like somebody with 40 hours of instrument instruction and who meets instrument recency requirements.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The FAA is obviously responsible for a ****-poor pilot decision and the failure of CFIs to teach that it's exclusively for emergency use. :rolleyes:

Since 2007, huh? I wonder whether the investigation will show a pilot like a former friend of mine who always scud ran. Always got away with it. Until one day he didn't and killed himself and his wife flying into a tall tower.

Obviously the FAA's fault. Really?

MauleSkinner said:
So you’re saying that the pilot’s response to going into the clouds (destabilizing the airplane and maneuvering into a crash) was proper?
Click to expand...
As I read it, he's saying that the pilot's response to going into the clouds was the result of lousy ADM by the pilot in a series of decisions, not by the FAA.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yeah. The FAA is obviously responsible for a ****-poor pilot decision and the failure of CFIs to teach that it's exclusively for emergency use. :rolleyes:

Since 2007, huh? I wonder whether the investigation will show a pilot like a former friend of mine who always scud ran. Always got away with it. Until one day he didn't and killed himself and his wife flying into a tall tower.

Obviously the FAA's fault. Really?


As I read it, he's saying that the pilot's response to going into the clouds was the result of lousy ADM by the pilot in a series of decisions, not by the FAA.
Click to expand...



Bingo.
 
Everything happens very quickly and I was in the situation before, I remember overbanking, getting spatial disorientation and then forgetting where to turn out of the turn at. I focused on the instruments and then remembered I need to go south / southeast (where I was coming from) and that’s what I did. I think we need some actual experience doing this before getting our PPL as flying with the hood on trying to simulate this, unexpected, is extremely difficult.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yeah. The FAA is obviously responsible for a ****-poor pilot decision and the failure of CFIs to teach that it's exclusively for emergency use. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, the FAA is responsible for the failure of CFIs to teach an emergency procedure that might actually work more consistently.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, the FAA is responsible for the failure of CFIs to teach an emergency procedure that might actually work more consistently.
Click to expand...
I doubt you'd find there was ever enough to overcome a VFR pilot who decides that scud running is safe.

And how about those loss of control and CFIT accidents involves instrument-rated pilots? Y'know, like the Mooney instrument pilot who flew into the tower while flying an approach just a few months ago? I guess should have had more than three hours of student training on basic control, eh?

I know how tempting it is to say, "we need more regulations!" But at some point we need to take responsibility for what we do in an airplane and not pass the buck to the FAA. If this is one of those intentional flights into marginal conditions by a pilot with a mission to get somewhere whose luck ran out, sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you on where the problem lies.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
No, the FAA is responsible for the failure of CFIs to teach an emergency procedure that might actually work more consistently.
Click to expand...
Easy to say, but what if it was taught, but then not practiced, and a couple of years later was needed? It's gone ... no fault of the FAA or the CFI.
That being said, my CFI (the second time I started to learn to fly, a few decades ago) had no problems giving me some "actual", which counted toward my instrument rating anyhow, during primary training, as well as a lot of underhood recovery from unusual attitudes. Not quite book, but I was fine with it.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Easy to say, but what if it was taught, but then not practiced, and a couple of years later was needed? It's gone ... no fault of the FAA or the CFI.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what’s happening. But if what’s taught involves the inherent stability of the airplane, that doesn’t go away.
 
So this gentleman was I guess trying to get to Florida on a long cross country originating in Maine. That's a pretty good trip this time of year - lots of folks will push back on this but if you are going to do trips like that you really need an instrument rating - otherwise, you see too many of these types of accidents.

Currency aside, more often than not even the most rusty instrument pilot could get themselves out of the jam this gentleman unfortunately got himself into.

There but for the grace of God go I -RIP.
 
I wonder if it would help if the US had an “en route” instrument rating like the Europeans. Much easier to get than a full IR, only requiring 15 hours of training. The pilot can’t fly IR approaches or departures; that must be done VFR. But he can transition to IFR for the en route phase of flight, allowing him to continue into IMC or climb above a layer.

I think many GA pilots use their instrument rating this way most of the time anyway.

See below.


==========================================
https://flight-examiner.com/skill-test/enroute-instrument-rating

Privileges ✅ of the EASA En-route Instrument rating
The privileges of the holder of an en-route instrument rating are to conduct flights by day under IFR in the en route phase of flight. The privileges of EIR may be extended to conduct IFR Night flights the en route phase of flight if the pilot holds a night rating in accordance with FCL.810. The holder of the en route instrument ratingmay only commence or continue a flight if the latest available meteorological information indicates that:

  • the weather conditions on departure are such as to enable the segment of the flight from take-off to a planned VFR-to-IFR transition to be conducted in compliance with VFR; and
  • at the estimated time of arrival at the planned destination aerodrome, the weather conditions will be such as to enable the segment of the flight from an IFR-to-VFR transition to landing to be conducted in compliance with VFR.
 
sarangan said:
An hour in actual during private pilot training would produce far more value than the 3 hours simulated.
Click to expand...
I would think a simulator would have very little value for this scenario. Ya gotta feel the plane. I’ve never heard of using a simulator for the PPL requirement.

EDIT: It’s been brought to my attention that simulated does not necessarily mean simulator. You can simulate in the plane with a hood.
 
Last edited:
sarangan said:
An hour in actual during private pilot training would produce far more value than the 3 hours simulated.
Click to expand...

because apparently - spending an hour more on ADM and all the warnings about a ppl not being allowed to fly in to imc isn’t useful or adhered to….. because what you are saying is that inadvertent is accidental. Cmon guys - this was unfortunate but the reality was all the stacked poor decisions that were made and inadvertent is just a nice way of saying he made a poor choice.
 
The FAA can mandate all kinds of requirements. However, we as pilots bare a lot of the responsibility for these accidents. Don't know the exact stats but isn't pilot error and fuel starvation the leading cause of fatalities and accidents? This guy just pushed his luck and paid for it. Now way in hell I would have taken off with those weather conditions.
 
luvflyin said:
I would think a simulator would have very little value for this scenario. Ya gotta feel the plane. I’ve never heard of using a simulator for the PPL requirement.
Click to expand...
"Feeling the plane" is a problem. Chances are the pilot ended up flying by feel rather than instruments. Even the most basic BATD removes outside references we often see around the foggles or permits them to be vertigo-inducing. Really teaches to disregard physical feelings and rely on the scan. But neither a simulator nor foggles, nor, for that matter, actual, is the same as the real thing from a psychological standpoint.

The ultimate problem with speculation on an accident like this is that it's difficult to say what would have helped. The typical chain is a series of poor decisions, so it's often a case of "your best thinking got you here." So what do you do now? Suddenly make good decisions? Do a better job than the one which got you into this mess?

Then, as already mentioned
Kenny Phillips said:
Easy to say, but what if it was taught, but then not practiced, and a couple of years later was needed? It's gone .
Click to expand...

Instrument pilots know how easy it is to lose hand-flying proficiency. Imagine what it is for a private pilot. More often than not, when I include instrument reference work on a flight review, it's the first time the pilot has been under the hood since their private checkride years, sometimes a decade or more earlier. Sometimes, I don't have to set up an unusual attitude - happens during the straight and level portion.

Even recency may not even help that much. Remember that JFK Jr was working on his instrument rating when the death spiral happened. "Yeah, but that's not the only thing that was going on." Exactly. The end result of a series of bad decisions is rarely a light going on. Not even one bright enough to tap the on switch of an autopilot.
 
Decades in the past, and then again when the LSA stuff came out, it was suggested that only two ratings would be needed: a limited day VFR license, and instrument. The former would be essentially expanded LSA rules, with, I believe, more conservative VFR rules (greater ceiling and vis, etc.) For anything else an IR would be needed.
I'm OK with that, but I'd also want *real world* currency, or your IR reverts to day VFR.
 
Do we know what kind of avionics was installed in the plane? Maybe he had a six-pack and an unreliable AI. That, couple with lack of currency/practice flying under the hood and no instrument rating can lead to bad consequences.
 
MauleSkinner said:
the FAA is responsible for the failure of CFIs to teach an emergency procedure that might actually work more consistently.
Click to expand...

I remember as a student being taught and as a CFI teaching 180 degree turns under the hood. Is that not taught anymore.??
 
Zeldman said:
I remember as a student being taught and as a CFI teaching 180 degree turns under the hood. Is that not taught anymore.??
Click to expand...

My PPL students did all the basic flight maneuvers under the hood. Once good at that, we would add in navigation. I’d give vectors, altitudes, tune in VOR frequencies, track to / from stations, intercept radials, and if we had time some magenta line following. Oh yea, unusual attitude recovery as well.
 
texasclouds said:
My PPL students did all the basic flight maneuvers under the hood. Once good at that, we would add in navigation. I’d give vectors, altitudes, tune in VOR frequencies, track to / from stations, intercept radials, and if we had time some magenta line following. Oh yea, unusual attitude recovery as well.
Click to expand...
The thing I did to add a little realism was to vector them to final (to the runway, not expecting them to understand instrument approaches) Two goals. One was, of course, to be able to follow those instructions without losing control the other was to see how disorienting "breaking out" can be. My CFI instructor taught another one that caused problems - a descent and turn at the same time. Screwed a lot of student pilots up showing that their baby scan was not sustainable and was not intended to let them make bad decisions.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The thing I did to add a little realism was to vector them to final (to the runway, not expecting them to understand instrument approaches) Two goals. One was, of course, to be able to follow those instructions without losing control the other was to see how disorienting "breaking out" can be. My CFI instructor taught another one that caused problems - a descent and turn at the same time. Screwed a lot of student pilots up showing that their baby scan was not sustainable and was not intended to let them make bad decisions.
Click to expand...


Yep. My PP CFI set me up on downwind and once on final while I was using foggles, then broke me out and had me land. He once broke me out and immediately pulled the throttle, making me quickly pick a spot and set up for an engine-out landing.

The checkride was much easier.
 
midlifeflyer said:
"Feeling the plane" is a problem. Chances are the pilot ended up flying by feel rather than instruments. Even the most basic BATD removes outside references we often see around the foggles or permits them to be vertigo-inducing. Really teaches to disregard physical feelings and rely on the scan. But neither a simulator nor foggles, nor, for that matter, actual, is the same as the real thing from a psychological standpoint.

The ultimate problem with speculation on an accident like this is that it's difficult to say what would have helped. The typical chain is a series of poor decisions, so it's often a case of "your best thinking got you here." So what do you do now? Suddenly make good decisions? Do a better job than the one which got you into this mess?

Then, as already mentioned


Instrument pilots know how easy it is to lose hand-flying proficiency. Imagine what it is for a private pilot. More often than not, when I include instrument reference work on a flight review, it's the first time the pilot has been under the hood since their private checkride years, sometimes a decade or more earlier. Sometimes, I don't have to set up an unusual attitude - happens during the straight and level portion.

Even recency may not even help that much. Remember that JFK Jr was working on his instrument rating when the death spiral happened. "Yeah, but that's not the only thing that was going on." Exactly. The end result of a series of bad decisions is rarely a light going on. Not even one bright enough to tap the on switch of an autopilot.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I didn’t mean fly by feel. I meant while flying the instruments, feel how what you’re feeling can be dead wrong. Simulators can’t do that. If you’re going incorporate instrument into PPL training for the purpose of maybe being able to survive an unintentional flight into the goo someday, I think it’s vital that it be done in the plane. And the CFI sets up a vertigo inducing situation.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. I didn’t mean fly by feel. I meant while flying the instruments, feel how what you’re feeling can be dead wrong. Simulators can’t do that. If you’re going incorporate instrument into PPL training for the purpose of maybe being able to survive an unintentional flight into the goo someday, I think it’s vital that it be done in the plane. And the CFI sets up a vertigo inducing situation.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the time that got me was when we were doing unusual attitudes and the instructor flicked the plane all over the place a few times, then told me to raise my head and recover. He had returned the plane to straight and level, but it sure didn't feel like it! Once I realized I didn't have to do anything at all to "recover" I started laughing about it.
 
luvflyin said:
I meant while flying the instruments, feel how what you’re feeling can be dead wrong. Simulators can’t do that.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for @sarangan but I suspect when he said "3 hours simulated" he was referring to "simulated instrument conditions" in VMC using a "view limiting device," as described in the Instrument Flying Handbook, not flying a ground-based simulator. Lots of ways to cheat it, but you still feel the airplane.

Nauga,
who knows reality is just a veil of illusion
 
Zeldman said:
I remember as a student being taught and as a CFI teaching 180 degree turns under the hood. Is that not taught anymore.??
Click to expand...

do you really think that a guy that was scud running for a hundred miles at 1000-1600ft to try and get to Sun'N'Fun is going to turn around when they hit some clouds ? Yeah, ADM, 1000,500, 2000 from clouds. 1600ft to avoid clouds, heading to the coast. Storm front coming. .
 
nauga said:
I can't speak for @sarangan but I suspect when he said "3 hours simulated" he was referring to "simulated instrument conditions" in VMC using a "view limiting device," as described in the Instrument Flying Handbook, not flying a ground-based simulator. Lots of ways to cheat it, but you still feel the airplane.

Nauga,
who knows reality is just a veil of illusion
Click to expand...
I think you’re probably right.
 
Zeldman said:
I remember as a student being taught and as a CFI teaching 180 degree turns under the hood. Is that not taught anymore.??
Click to expand...
Yes, it is, but you’re taught to fly it like you’re current on instruments, not like you have a high probability of losing that proficiency. Let the stability of the airplane do the hard work…it doesn’t forget how.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top