Angry [More Info]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:46:48 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

Departure on the other hand I find _much_ higher workload, single pilot
IFR (especailly at night), especially in a high performance plane (less
so in a C172). Things are happening quickly, and at least when I lived
in Houston, it seems that you rarely got the clearance you asked for and
had some sort of re-route just about when you'd levelled off at your
initial altitude, meaning another climbing turn.

That's pretty common in the Northeast, also. More so when I lived closer
to NYC than now, though. But that's something you become more able to
handle with experience. Also, if there is an Obstacle Departure procedure,
I always fly it.


Plus the effects on
your inner ear seem to be the most pronounced at this point too

I've never noted that in my instrument flying.

Night IFR plus mountains has to be higher workload still as there are
even more fsck ups that can lead you to be smeared over the ground - in
the flatlands, a minor navigational error is unlikely to kill you.

Personally, I wouldn't do single pilot IFR at night in the mountains
while solo, let alone with the added distraction of having family
members along for the ride.

Everyone has to draw a line someplace according to their risk tolerance.
With more (good) experience, you become more able to handle cockpit
"distractions" and increased workload. Personally, I draw a firm line with
regard to icing conditions; and I also won't fly in the mountains if the
winds are too high. I don't know what they were on the route in question,
though.

The equipment you're flying has much to do with it, too. I'd much rather
be in a high-performance aircraft in night IMC in the mountains than in a
C172, though.

But I was wondering about the specifics of Hilton's objection to this
flight, in view of the fact that he wrote he was a CFII so shouldn't have a
problem with the IMC.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:14:10 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2005-12-29, Neil Gould wrote:
Unfortunately some folks have degraded the initial thread to some
political rambling, so I figured I'd post this to a new thread.

As I predicted:
1. "non-instrument rated private pilot"
2. "Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed"

What does this mean, exactly? A clear, moonless night in a rural area
would qualify. I thought this accident was during a time when IMC
prevailed, regardless of the time of day?

It may qualify, but officially night IMC doesn't mean a clear moonless
night - that's still (officially) night VMC. Also, anywhere where there
is significant amount of lighting on the ground, night VMC (on a clear
moonless night, which is likely to also mean smooth flying conditions)
compared to a cloudy night with poor visibility (which may include
turbulence and icing in the clouds).

A bit off topic, but it does depend on what you credit as being "official".
Certainly, for the purpose of logging instrument flight time, a moonless
night over water may qualify.

From a published FAA legal opinion:

"... actual instrument conditions may
occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with
no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to
maintain adequate control over the aircraft. "

It is also true that you do not require an IFR flight plan under these
conditions.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On 2005-12-29, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
Plus the effects on
your inner ear seem to be the most pronounced at this point too

I've never noted that in my instrument flying.

Are you sure? The pitch changes in the departure phase tend to be
greater, as well as acceleration effects. In most light planes, 10
degrees pitch up makes your initial climb. In the enroute phase or
approach phase, pitch changes are usually nowhere near 10 degrees or
large changes of speed in a short period of time while trying to
transition from looking out the windscreen to being on instruments. The
busiest times I've ever had single pilot IFR have been taking off in a
Bonanza in low IFR conditions to add to this. I'm not surprised that
non-proficient in IMC pilots get screwed up and crash on departure.

The equipment you're flying has much to do with it, too. I'd much rather
be in a high-performance aircraft in night IMC in the mountains than in a
C172, though.

I would out of principle too, but there's no denying it's a lot less
busy in a C172 especially on departure!

But I was wondering about the specifics of Hilton's objection to this
flight, in view of the fact that he wrote he was a CFII so shouldn't have a
problem with the IMC.

If I'm not mistaken, it was in the mountains in a fairly marginal plane
(a C172 loaded with people is pretty marginal when it comes to climb
rate). I'm not sure I'd want to launch at night in the mountains in IMC
in a C172 either! I'd want something that could climb _well_ and had
good instrumentation.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

"... actual instrument conditions may
occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with
no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to
maintain adequate control over the aircraft. "

That's IC but not IMC. My take on the phase "IMC" has been that the IC must
be caused by M.

- Andrew

Dylan Smith wrote:
....
Night IFR plus mountains has to be higher workload still as there are
even more fsck ups that can lead you to be smeared over the ground - in
the flatlands, a minor navigational error is unlikely to kill you.

I agree but these these were not really mountains. There are no
airports in these "mountains" either so really these bumps are only
during the enroute phase. Big woop. Typically You are cruising
along typically at 6000 to 8000 feet all fat dumb and happy. There
is literally no reason to be lower. The killer (literally, no pun
intended) was the pilot was pushed lower and/or continued into IMC and
was forced lower into ground whether that was at 0 MSL or 3000 MSL.
It wasn't like he was flying in a valley in the mountains. There are
no real valleys that you can fly in these 'mere continous
rounded bumps.'

I've flown in this area a bunch of times. If I were VFR-only, I would
NOT have chosen this route especially at night. Following
Interstate 5 gives you nearly continuous visual contact with the
ground below. there are a million and a half airports along the -5-
too. In fact, right after getting my private, I did do this exactly
while going northbound. There was stratus and once I knew the
terrain was increasing a little and the stratus sloping downwards,
I turned around about 6 miles north of Modesto and spent the night.
A year later I did this during the day. The visibility was great below
the 5000 MSL stratus 10 miles south of MOD. I went over these mountains
and it was VERY easy to avoid the terrain. Now at night, I would have
definitely stayed higher if given the option. This guy was not.

There was just a Lear accident at Truckee. That is mountainous terrain.
what those guys did was insane. Mountainous with known severe updrafts
and downdrafts, at visibility minimums (I don't have any reports on the
ceiling), in snow or rain and probably below freezing, non-precision
approaches only with one of which only is a circle to land. Ummm,
sounds to me like they should have gone to Reno's 11000 foot runway
with an ILS.

Gerald

Neil wrote:
3. "a flight plan was not filed for the cross-country flight"

Would that have made a difference?

Some pilots on this NG were asking if he was IFR.

Hilton

Hilton wrote:
Neil wrote:
3. "a flight plan was not filed for the cross-country flight"

Would that have made a difference?

Some pilots on this NG were asking if he was IFR.

I don't follow you. He could've asked for a pop-up clearance.

-jav

"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...
Neil wrote:
3. "a flight plan was not filed for the cross-country flight"

Would that have made a difference?

Some pilots on this NG were asking if he was IFR.

This case really amazes me. The guy had his PPL for a month or so, and had
no problem at all with departing at night, in the rain, with his wife, and 2
kids they planned to adopt.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:10:54 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2005-12-29, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
Plus the effects on
your inner ear seem to be the most pronounced at this point too

I've never noted that in my instrument flying.

Are you sure? The pitch changes in the departure phase tend to be
greater, as well as acceleration effects. In most light planes, 10
degrees pitch up makes your initial climb. In the enroute phase or
approach phase, pitch changes are usually nowhere near 10 degrees or
large changes of speed in a short period of time while trying to
transition from looking out the windscreen to being on instruments. The
busiest times I've ever had single pilot IFR have been taking off in a
Bonanza in low IFR conditions to add to this. I'm not surprised that
non-proficient in IMC pilots get screwed up and crash on departure.

No question but that pitch changes may be greater on takeoff than enroute.
But I've not noted any equilibrium problems while flying IMC. Maybe that's
from practice relying on the instruments and ignoring body cues?



The equipment you're flying has much to do with it, too. I'd much rather
be in a high-performance aircraft in night IMC in the mountains than in a
C172, though.

I would out of principle too, but there's no denying it's a lot less
busy in a C172 especially on departure!

I suppose. But I don't seem to have a problem handling the few "extra"
tasks in my Mooney.


But I was wondering about the specifics of Hilton's objection to this
flight, in view of the fact that he wrote he was a CFII so shouldn't have a
problem with the IMC.

If I'm not mistaken, it was in the mountains in a fairly marginal plane
(a C172 loaded with people is pretty marginal when it comes to climb
rate). I'm not sure I'd want to launch at night in the mountains in IMC
in a C172 either! I'd want something that could climb _well_ and had
good instrumentation.

Concur!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:13:06 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

That's IC but not IMC. My take on the phase "IMC" has been that the IC must
be caused by M.

Upon reflection, I would agree with you.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)