Night over water

Stan Gosnell wrote
When it comes to helicopters, you're probably right. But VFR airplane
pilots are taught the instrument skills necessary to operate in those
conditions.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. VFR airplane pilots continue to die
under these conditions, the most notable lately being JFK Jr.

Actually, JFK Jr. was well on his way to an instrument rating, and
lost control in straight and level flight - which is pretty much the
first thing you learn. He also had an autopilot he could have
engaged. What's more, a disturbingly large fraction of thpse who die
in such conditions (as well as in inadvertent VFR-into-IMC accidents)
are instrument rated.

Personally, I think the difference between the pilots who die when
they encounter these conditions and the ones that shrug them off as no
big deal is not training (at least not for airplane pilots) but
something else entirely. Some people panic, and some don't. The
actual skill required to keep the shiny side up is pretty minimal.

Michael

On 12 Feb 2004 16:40:55 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

Stan Gosnell wrote
When it comes to helicopters, you're probably right. But VFR airplane
pilots are taught the instrument skills necessary to operate in those
conditions.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. VFR airplane pilots continue to die
under these conditions, the most notable lately being JFK Jr.

Actually, JFK Jr. was well on his way to an instrument rating, and
lost control in straight and level flight - which is pretty much the

I would agree only in that he had a lot of hours which does not
necessarily mean he was well on his way.

Also the reported flight path would be pretty much typical of some one
turning the autopilot off and discovering they needed to watch the
instruments, but kept looking for the surface. That is one of the
most difficult things to do when starting out. Stay on the
instruments and occasionally look out, don't keep looking for the
surface or you will end up in a spiral.

first thing you learn. He also had an autopilot he could have
engaged. What's more, a disturbingly large fraction of thpse who die
in such conditions (as well as in inadvertent VFR-into-IMC accidents)
are instrument rated.

Being rated does not mean the pilot is proficient, or even current.


Personally, I think the difference between the pilots who die when
they encounter these conditions and the ones that shrug them off as no
big deal is not training (at least not for airplane pilots) but

"To me" it is not staying proficient. The 3 hours of hood time
required for the PPL is woefully inadequate to save the pilot's butt,
particularly if those 3 hours were 10 years ago.

I'm rated, but if I don't fly under the hood or in actual for a couple
of months I'd be very uncomfortable just climbing into the clouds.

something else entirely. Some people panic, and some don't. The
actual skill required to keep the shiny side up is pretty minimal.

Here we disagree, but it may be semantics. Even without panic, a
pilot who is not proficient is going to have a devil of a time keeping
the shiny side up. It does vary from pilot to pilot and I do agree
that an hour every couple of weeks is all it takes to stay upright,
but 6 hours every six months may not if they are all done at the same
time. The pilot may be safe after the 6 hours, but it's highly
unlikely he or she would be the previous couple of months.

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

Michael

Roger Halstead wrote
I would agree only in that he had a lot of hours which does not
necessarily mean he was well on his way.

Well, an examination of his logbooks showed him making progress.

Also the reported flight path would be pretty much typical of some one
turning the autopilot off and discovering they needed to watch the
instruments, but kept looking for the surface.

Maybe. If you try to fly visually instead of using the instruments,
no amount of instrument training will help you.

But that still doesn't exaplain why he didn't use the autopilot until
he was close to the airport and had lots of lights and a solid horizon
reference.

Being rated does not mean the pilot is proficient, or even current.

True, but you would think that being rated would mean enough
proficiency to reasonably hold heading and altitude (say +/- 30 deg
and 500 ft). Plenty of instrument rated pilots encounter IMC and fail
to do that.


"To me" it is not staying proficient. The 3 hours of hood time
required for the PPL is woefully inadequate to save the pilot's butt,

I had much less than 3 (my logbook shows 1.1) and it was plenty
adequate to save my butt, even when I had to fly an emergency ASR.

something else entirely. Some people panic, and some don't. The
actual skill required to keep the shiny side up is pretty minimal.

Here we disagree, but it may be semantics. Even without panic, a
pilot who is not proficient is going to have a devil of a time keeping
the shiny side up.

I don't think it's semantics. I think that just keeping the shiny
side up is really pretty trivial, and something that requires very,
very little training in the average trainer. Now I will admit that
for a higher performance airplane that's not the case, and I suspect
that it goes double for rotorcraft.

I also think some pilots are just very reluctant to let go of visual
references and trust the gauges. When they lose visual references,
they panic. It takes some serious habituation to get them to fly on
the gauges, and for them that ability is very perishable.

I suspect early training is a big factor. There are still instructors
out there who insist that the integrated method of instruction (where
visual and instrument references are blended for aircraft control from
day one) is garbage, and that primary students should be taught to fly
by the seat of the pants - meaning by purely visual and somatic
references. These are the kinds of guys who will cover the panel with
a handkerchief if they catch the student looking at instruments. I
suspect that people trained that way will inevitably go to outside
references under stress, and will be forever at risk for loss of
control if they unexpectedly encounter conditions where visual control
is impossible, unless they practice instrument flight a lot and often.
On the other hand, I suspect those trained by the integrated method
are a lot more comfortable with using the instruments, and will not
revert to purely visual flight under stress.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
Stan Gosnell wrote
When it comes to helicopters, you're probably right. But VFR airplane
pilots are taught the instrument skills necessary to operate in those
conditions.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. VFR airplane pilots continue to
die
under these conditions, the most notable lately being JFK Jr.

Actually, JFK Jr. was well on his way to an instrument rating, and
lost control in straight and level flight - which is pretty much the
first thing you learn. He also had an autopilot he could have
engaged. What's more, a disturbingly large fraction of thpse who die
in such conditions (as well as in inadvertent VFR-into-IMC accidents)
are instrument rated.

Personally, I think the difference between the pilots who die when
they encounter these conditions and the ones that shrug them off as no
big deal is not training (at least not for airplane pilots) but
something else entirely. Some people panic, and some don't. The
actual skill required to keep the shiny side up is pretty minimal.

Michael


I'm not sure which comes first. Disorientation or panic. Either one will
cause the other. You seem to have an easy time keeping your perspective
without visual references. Many people are not that fortunate and have to
consciously fight the urge to fly by the seat of their pants when their
physical sensors gets confused. Given the accident statistics for VFR flight
into IMC, that seems to be true of instrument trained pilots and not.

JFK and many others have become victims because they were not able to
recognize the problem until it was too late. Once the problem develops,
panic probably prevented them from taking simple steps that would have saved
the day.

By tracking VORs, watching min altitudes and contour lines on sectionals,
VFR pilots have enough training to navigate and avoid the ground without
visual references. Presumably, by the time they have to descend below
surrounding min altitudes, there would be airport lights to guide them. How
often do VFR pilots pay that much attention to the section while trying to
fly the plane.

I think that flying in VMC in the dark is probably the scariest thing. You
are responsible for see and avoid and yet, you need to have your head in the
cockpit to control the plane. For me, swiveling my head for an outside scan
can be disorienting. Too dark to see the clouds you might be flying into?
Hmm. I hope that there is only one of you out there.

VFR pilot in a VFR plane at night in the dark. How accurate is the
altimeter. Pitot/static system been tested lately? Vacuum, gyro, turn
coordinator? That's an awful lot of things that can go wrong in a plane that
doesn't officially need most of it just when the pilot might.

-------------------------------
Travis

"Travis Marlatte" wrote
I'm not sure which comes first. Disorientation or panic. Either one will
cause the other. You seem to have an easy time keeping your perspective
without visual references. Many people are not that fortunate and have to
consciously fight the urge to fly by the seat of their pants when their
physical sensors gets confused.

I doubt that my situation is unique - I know lots of people who have
no problem trusting the instruments. As I said above, I suspect the
issue is one of initial flight training. If you learn to use the
instruments for aircraft control from day one, they are familiar. As
visual references become less and less useful, you just naturally rely
on the instruments to a greater extent. That's what the integrated
method of instruction is all about.

I suspect the people who have to consciously fight the urge to fly by
the seat of the pants were trained to do that. Such instructors start
covering up instruments the moment a student starts using them to make
his life easier. Thus they teach a lesson below the conscious level -
and that lesson is that the instruments are not reliable, and that one
can rely only on the seat of the pants. There are still plenty of
flight instructors who believe this is the right way. As you may have
gathered, I am not one of them.

Given the accident statistics for VFR flight
into IMC, that seems to be true of instrument trained pilots and not.

One of the fundamental principles of learning is the principle of
primacy. That which is taught first is best remembered. It's much
easier to learn it the right way from day one than to unlearn it
later, and there is a regrettable tendency to revert to the earliest
training under stress.

JFK and many others have become victims because they were not able to
recognize the problem until it was too late. Once the problem develops,
panic probably prevented them from taking simple steps that would have saved
the day.

I concur.

By tracking VORs, watching min altitudes and contour lines on sectionals,
VFR pilots have enough training to navigate and avoid the ground without
visual references.

Absolutely.

Presumably, by the time they have to descend below
surrounding min altitudes, there would be airport lights to guide them.

Right - that's the idea.

How
often do VFR pilots pay that much attention to the section while trying to
fly the plane.

I would imagine all the time. I can remember conducting more than a
few flights in exactly the manner you describe.

I think that flying in VMC in the dark is probably the scariest thing. You
are responsible for see and avoid and yet, you need to have your head in the
cockpit to control the plane. For me, swiveling my head for an outside scan
can be disorienting.

Trust me - it gets better with practice.

Too dark to see the clouds you might be flying into?
Hmm. I hope that there is only one of you out there.

You know, in the UK flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace, without a
clearance, is quite normal. I don't believe there has ever been a
midair due to this practice. There are only a very few areas where
airplanes congregate - basically just VOR's and busy airports. These
days, GPS makes it totally unnecessary to fly VOR-to-VOR, and busy
airports are well lit.

VFR pilot in a VFR plane at night in the dark. How accurate is the
altimeter. Pitot/static system been tested lately?

Who cares? The pitot-static check is of no value whatsoever in a slow
unpressurized airplane. So what if the static system leaks? About
the maximum error you will get from the venturi effect is maybe 100
ft. You can effectively check the altimeter at any airport with
weather reporting - just set it to the altimeter setting and check
against field elevation. If it's about right, it's plenty close
enough for cruising flight.

What you're doing here is spreading FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

Vacuum, gyro, turn
coordinator? That's an awful lot of things that can go wrong in a plane that
doesn't officially need most of it just when the pilot might.

More FUD.

There are three gyros on two independent power sources in most
airplanes, and realistically a simple trainer only needs one of them -
any one. If they were working to begin with, what are the odds they
are all going to fail?

Besides, do you know what kind of gyro checks are required for Part 91
IFR? Right, none.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message om...

I doubt that my situation is unique - I know lots of people who have
no problem trusting the instruments.

Actually, what kills a lot of people in my opinion is not "not trusting
instruments" but rather, not realizing it's time to get on the gauges.
I never had any problem flying under the hood in my training.
I remember my first wander into IMC (an instructor was in the right
seat). Just a gentle drift off into the clouds. I was staring off into
the nothingness for several seconds until the instructor prompted me
with something with "don't lose it on me." And then I hunkered down
on the gauges and got to business. I've seen other pilots do the
same thing. I'm fairly convinced this is what got JFKJr. Had he
thought, I'm out over water, I'd better get on the dials, he probably
would be OK, but he was staring out at a non-existent (or false)
horizon until it was too late.

In article ,
"Ron Natalie" wrote:
Actually, what kills a lot of people in my opinion is not "not trusting
instruments" but rather, not realizing it's time to get on the gauges.


Maybe, maybe not. In my experience, everyone seems to be a little
different regarding vertigo, and their reaction when they do encounter
it. During most of my instrument training, I NEVER had vertigo, even
when I was solid IMC and looked away from the panel. My wife, on the
other hand, gets vertigo more easily. I suspect that perhaps the only
ones still living who know best what may have happend to JFKJr are his
former flight instructors. We have no way to make meaningful guesses as
to whether his trouble keeping the shiny side up was a frequent
occurance or an usually rapid onset of fatal mistakes.


JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ron Natalie" wrote:
Actually, what kills a lot of people in my opinion is not "not trusting
instruments" but rather, not realizing it's time to get on the gauges.


Maybe, maybe not. In my experience, everyone seems to be a little
different regarding vertigo, and their reaction when they do encounter
it. During most of my instrument training, I NEVER had vertigo, even
when I was solid IMC and looked away from the panel. My wife, on the
other hand, gets vertigo more easily. I suspect that perhaps the only
ones still living who know best what may have happend to JFKJr are his
former flight instructors. We have no way to make meaningful guesses as
to whether his trouble keeping the shiny side up was a frequent
occurance or an usually rapid onset of fatal mistakes.


JKG

If you are solidly flying on instruments, you should be able to maintain
control even during a spell of disorientation. If you try to tranisition to
the instruements after becoming disoriented, it is more likely to be too
late (not absolutely too late. Just more likely).

-------------------------------
Travis

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Travis Marlatte" wrote
I'm not sure which comes first. Disorientation or panic. Either one will
cause the other. You seem to have an easy time keeping your perspective
without visual references. Many people are not that fortunate and have
to
consciously fight the urge to fly by the seat of their pants when their
physical sensors gets confused.

I doubt that my situation is unique - I know lots of people who have
no problem trusting the instruments. As I said above, I suspect the
issue is one of initial flight training. If you learn to use the
instruments for aircraft control from day one, they are familiar. As
visual references become less and less useful, you just naturally rely
on the instruments to a greater extent. That's what the integrated
method of instruction is all about.

I said "many" not "all."


I suspect the people who have to consciously fight the urge to fly by
the seat of the pants were trained to do that. Such instructors start
covering up instruments the moment a student starts using them to make
his life easier. Thus they teach a lesson below the conscious level -
and that lesson is that the instruments are not reliable, and that one
can rely only on the seat of the pants. There are still plenty of
flight instructors who believe this is the right way. As you may have
gathered, I am not one of them.

Given the accident statistics for VFR flight
into IMC, that seems to be true of instrument trained pilots and not.

One of the fundamental principles of learning is the principle of
primacy. That which is taught first is best remembered. It's much
easier to learn it the right way from day one than to unlearn it
later, and there is a regrettable tendency to revert to the earliest
training under stress.

Learning to crawl and walk by trusting our physical sensations came before
that. Which training will respond first? Flight training and experience make
it easier.

The initial discussion got started by questioning whether ATC would give a
VFR flight a break and keep them over land versus dark water. Your claim is
that every pilot should have received sufficient training and be able to fly
comfortably without any visual references.

I just don't think that is the case. The instrument training provided during
primary training is designed to give pilots a way out should they
inadvertently fly into a cloud - not to support a longer flight.


JFK and many others have become victims because they were not able to
recognize the problem until it was too late. Once the problem develops,
panic probably prevented them from taking simple steps that would have
saved
the day.

I concur.

By tracking VORs, watching min altitudes and contour lines on
sectionals,
VFR pilots have enough training to navigate and avoid the ground without
visual references.

Absolutely.

Presumably, by the time they have to descend below
surrounding min altitudes, there would be airport lights to guide them.

Right - that's the idea.

How
often do VFR pilots pay that much attention to the section while trying
to
fly the plane.

I would imagine all the time. I can remember conducting more than a
few flights in exactly the manner you describe.

I think that flying in VMC in the dark is probably the scariest thing.
You
are responsible for see and avoid and yet, you need to have your head in
the
cockpit to control the plane. For me, swiveling my head for an outside
scan
can be disorienting.

Trust me - it gets better with practice.

Too dark to see the clouds you might be flying into?
Hmm. I hope that there is only one of you out there.

You know, in the UK flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace, without a
clearance, is quite normal. I don't believe there has ever been a
midair due to this practice. There are only a very few areas where
airplanes congregate - basically just VOR's and busy airports. These
days, GPS makes it totally unnecessary to fly VOR-to-VOR, and busy
airports are well lit.

VFR pilot in a VFR plane at night in the dark. How accurate is the
altimeter. Pitot/static system been tested lately?

Who cares? The pitot-static check is of no value whatsoever in a slow
unpressurized airplane. So what if the static system leaks? About
the maximum error you will get from the venturi effect is maybe 100
ft. You can effectively check the altimeter at any airport with
weather reporting - just set it to the altimeter setting and check
against field elevation. If it's about right, it's plenty close
enough for cruising flight.

What you're doing here is spreading FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

Vacuum, gyro, turn
coordinator? That's an awful lot of things that can go wrong in a plane
that
doesn't officially need most of it just when the pilot might.

More FUD.

There are three gyros on two independent power sources in most
airplanes, and realistically a simple trainer only needs one of them -
any one. If they were working to begin with, what are the odds they
are all going to fail?

Besides, do you know what kind of gyro checks are required for Part 91
IFR? Right, none.

Michael

I agree that it was a lot of U and D. That was my point. There are many
uncertainties that should cause some doubt. It is our role as pilots to
control the Fear.

-------------------------------
Travis

"Travis Marlatte" wrote
I said "many" not "all."

So what is many? 90%? 50%? 10%? 1%? There are 200,000+ private
pilots without instrument ratings out there. Even 1% of that is 2,000
- arguably "many" people. Should we be gearing procedures to that 1%?

Learning to crawl and walk by trusting our physical sensations came before
that.

I'm not convinced we have to learn to crawl, or even walk. Certainly
nobody has to teach us. The ability to do so is hardwired; it's
generally just a matter of getting the muscles to catch up. Most
people are taught to fly an airplane. It's a very different activity,
and much less physically complex.

Walking is an extremely complex operation. When people are paralyzed
due to a severed spinal column, it is possible to artificially
stimulate the nerves in their legs and get them to move. It's been
possible for decades, and decades ago computers were programmed to
stimulate their nerves and get the legs to move sufficiently to ride a
tricycle. Walking, however, is still out of the question despite
decades of improvement in computers.

Flying an airplane straight and level on instruments? I believe the
first autopilots were built in the 1930's. That gives you some feel
for the relative complexity of the tasks.

The initial discussion got started by questioning whether ATC would give a
VFR flight a break and keep them over land versus dark water. Your claim is
that every pilot should have received sufficient training and be able to fly
comfortably without any visual references.

And I think that makes a lot of sense. It's a simple task, and
private pilots are trained for it.

I just don't think that is the case. The instrument training provided during
primary training is designed to give pilots a way out should they
inadvertently fly into a cloud - not to support a longer flight.

Nothing in the PTS supports this view. Instrument maneuvers are not
classed with emergencies, and they include tracking VOR radials which
certainly implies longer flights than are necessary to exit a cloud
that was entered inadvertenetly.

I agree that it was a lot of U and D. That was my point. There are many
uncertainties that should cause some doubt.

No, that's not what I said at all. I don't agree that there's a lot
of uncertainty and doubt - I think you are creating uncertainty and
doubt needlessly.

Michael