On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:36:59 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The

For practice I think it's an unnecessary added risk and really adds
nothing that you can't do under the hood.

accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots.

I'm not so sure about that, but I don't know.


I think this is a simpleminded use of statistics, and suggest (avec
caveat) that an examination of -why- it is the top killer (if in fact it
is; I don't know this) would be called for. I speculate:

1: the unusual attitude came as a surprise,

Many things can come as surprises, but the only way an unusual
attitude should come as a surprise is either extreme turbulence, or
lack of attention.

On one of my early flights as a student in IMC, I ended up in an
unusual attitude. ( I let the bank in a descending turn get too steep
and away we went) The instructor never said a word. He just sat there
and waited for me to recover which I did. Certainly he would have
taken over had things (or I) appeared to be coming unglued, but it was
little different than a VFR recovery. You do have to learn that both
the DG and AI are quite likely to be unreliable during and for a
little while after an unusual attitude recovery.

2: it came as a result of an instrument failure (such as vacuum) and

Vacuum failures can catch even experienced pilots as the AI very
slooooly rolls over and plays dead. Slow enough that the pilot has a
tendency to follow it unless his/her instrument scan catches it right
away. You'd think it'd be easy to catch, but if you are bouncing
around with the resultant erratic instruments bounces as well, the
failure may be pronounced before the differences in the scan become
pronounced enough to spot. Still, although it may result in the
necessity of an unusual attitude recovery, with altitude it should be
relatively easy.

subsequent lack of partial panel chops,

That is important.

3: it came about single pilot

It should not be much of a problem for a *proficient* pilot. Notice I
didn't say current.

4: the pilot was not sharp at recovery (or even IMC skills)
and/or

Which was my case.

5: it came about with a low ceiling, allowing no room for VFR recovery.

We had lots of altitude.


Practicing unusual attitude recovery, deliberately, in IMC, with a high
ceiling, and with a CFII, would address all of these conditions except
instrument failure. That last condition could be addressed by checking
the gauges prior to each entry.

Actually... that is probably a no. It is quite easy to cause the gyros
to tumble in an unusual attitude, or recovery. You don't have to roll
much beyond 60 degrees for that to happen. I've been 90 degreed by
the weather quite a few times and it usually takes the AI and DG a bit
to recover. I always figure an unusual attitude recovery IMC or under
the hood is going to be partial panel as those are the only
instruments at that time I really trust even if my scan does tell me
they all agree.


Actually =doing= the maneuvers, even a this way, does entail some risk,
but the benefit is increased IFR sharpness and skills, which translates
into overall safer IFR flying.

Most of this can be done under the hood with an instructor, or safety
pilot who is intimately familiar with the airplane and its
requirements and is probably a lot safer. I'd not want to be doing
unusual attitude recovery in IMC unless I was very proficient and I
tend to be pretty laid back and am very familiar with my plane and
just how far it can go before complaining or trying to bite back..

I really don't see much of an advantage to actually doing stalls and
unusual attitude recovery in IMC compared to under the hood. Besides
if the worst does happen and your screw up under the hood there should
be someone in the right seat who can help.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jose