Practice IMC in real IMC

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

I take it you dumped that guy?

Nope. He's a 10,000 hour, gray-haired ATP with a lot of experience to
share and a very good teacher. I would imagine he only hands out tasks
such as these if he has confidence in the instrument pilot taking the IPC.

Or he's showing you what HE can do. The air carriers have been training
these in simulators for years...for a reason.

Recall the discussion here several months ago regarding teaching "spin
recovery versus spin avoidance".

The air carriers have been training these in simulators for years...for a
reason.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"kgruber" wrote in message
...

" You probably wouldn't be save in IMC without your flight director so I

think you are exercising good judgement.

You are really full of crap (putting it mildly). You're one of those
brick-brains that give GA a bad reputation, the worst of which is
justified.

You pompous idiot...smarter that ASF and the other organizations and more
goddamn arrogant than the fools we deride.

Okay, you overgrown punk, get the last word in like you usually do in
your typical adolescent manner.


Drinking AGAIN tonight matt? You really need to put a check mark in the
"Do you have visions of self grandeur" box on your next medical.


Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The
accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots. So
tell me how that equates to "visions of self grandeur" instead of something
more the opposite, such as "not pushing ones luck"?

That fact that you are uncomfortable doesn't mean that it is dangerous
or that others shouldn't do it. And I've seen no data that suggests
that practicing in IMC with an instructor is a top killer of IR pilots.
Personally, I think the reason that pilots lose it in IMC on "real"
flights is because they don't practice flying maneuvers enough in real IMC.


Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Matt Barrow wrote:


I take it you dumped that guy?

Nope. He's a 10,000 hour, gray-haired ATP with a lot of experience to
share and a very good teacher. I would imagine he only hands out tasks
such as these if he has confidence in the instrument pilot taking the IPC.


Or he's showing you what HE can do. The air carriers have been training
these in simulators for years...for a reason.

True, and the reason is that it costs way too much to practice in a real
airliner.


Recall the discussion here several months ago regarding teaching "spin
recovery versus spin avoidance".

The air carriers have been training these in simulators for years...for a
reason.

Yes, see above. Also, many airliners aren't recoverable from a spin so
practicing spins in them would be ill advised.


Matt

Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The
accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots.

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,
2: it came as a result of an instrument failure (such as vacuum) and
subsequent lack of partial panel chops,
3: it came about single pilot
4: the pilot was not sharp at recovery (or even IMC skills)
and/or
5: it came about with a low ceiling, allowing no room for VFR recovery.

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 =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.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

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.

It's different in the clag. Hoodwork is helpful, but actual can be an
eye-opener.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Roger" wrote in message
...
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.

In combining the latest Nall Report (which does more to report by aircraft
type) and the data from the ASF's Beech Safety Report (which is more a
comparison of Beech models but also of IR vs non-IR pilots), it _appears_
the biggest killer of IR pilots is flight into thunderstorms during IMC and
loss of control while maneauvering in IMC (combined factors???...I'm not a
statistician, nor a "****house lawyer" :~) ).

I'd be intereted in seeing a report that sifts the data out more directly
than trying to extrapolate multiple sources.

snip

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
...

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.


In combining the latest Nall Report (which does more to report by aircraft
type) and the data from the ASF's Beech Safety Report (which is more a
comparison of Beech models but also of IR vs non-IR pilots), it _appears_
the biggest killer of IR pilots is flight into thunderstorms during IMC and
loss of control while maneauvering in IMC (combined factors???...I'm not a
statistician, nor a "****house lawyer" :~) ).


Which has nothing to do with the point being discussed which was
PRACTICE maneuvers with an instructor. I'd argue that if we did more
practice in actual we'd have fewer accidents in actual. Although,
flying into a thunderstorm is as much an error in judgement as it is a
measure of flying ability.


I'd be intereted in seeing a report that sifts the data out more directly
than trying to extrapolate multiple sources.

I agree. I've never seen such data, unfortunately.

Matt

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in
:

Robert Chambers wrote:
Cloud flying is different, a peek is work a thousand crosschecks, you
are forced to be honest when you're in the soup, even your peripheral
cues disappear.


Pretty much everyone will tell you it's actually easier to fly in
clouds than under the hood. I assume it's because you have the normal
scope of vision within the cockpit compared to the very limited view
under the hood. So, while you still can't see the horizon, you can
see the radios, compass, instruments, etc in the same view.

Then of course there's the added motivation. This is one video game
you can't afford to lose.


I don't know if I agree completely...

It's much harder to keep your scan going when you want so badly to look out
the window at the beautiful cloud formations!

It's much harder to keep your scan going when you want so badly to look out
the window at the beautiful cloud formations!

If you can see beautiful cloud formations, your eyeballs had better be
focused on the HDPD(*) in front of you. Aluminum is everywhere!

*High Definition Plexiglass Display
Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.