Suffolk Light Aircraft Crash: One Person Dead

Nasty business.

In hindsight a climb above the fog and a call to D&D to identify a fog-free alternate would have been the best plan. A precautionary in any of the larger fields would be second best.

One to remember for the future. That and the fact that ‘isolated’ on a 215 can mean an area of several thousand square miles.

Moggy

Accident report published.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Jabiru%20UL,%20G-VILA%2009-13.pdf

It makes interesting reading.

Xmas Foggles

JG You could send him some Xmas Foggles with imitation snow on them
best wishes for 2013. PC.

Popjoy Pete

Yes, you are right !

It is that time. I wish Moggy C particularly, and all the other Mods and members a very happy, peaceful and thoroughly pleasant Yuletide followed by a prosperous and not-too-controversial New Year.

Unexpected instrument flying situation

Now girls its Xmas, so what about some goodwill and cheer.
The problem with unplanned excursions into instrument conditions (not just cloud/fog) but could be a horizon limiting thick haze, is that a substantial number of pilots have not considered the ‘possibility’ in the flight planning stage.
All of a sudden :- Nav kit,comms,performance,fuel,notam’s and available alternatives become very important,especially if you were just up for a local bimble,and had not really thought you needed to bother. Pilots have become reliant on radio and GPS; which is fine, but a subconcious plan B & C is no bad thing when the ‘norm’ goes pear shaped.
When i say flight planning it should be remembered that an airfield may go ‘out’ at short notice for a non weather situation and this is not always appreciated by pilots who fly infrequently. Dry exercises at home on the kitchen table cost nothing but at least keep the thought process on-line.
When i checked out pilots for local (SE) commercial pleasure flying i expected them to know where all the local strips* were located and be ready to use one if the need arose (the op’s inspector did not have a problem with that).
Merry Christmas to all.
* Including m-light and farm ones.

I am wrong in one direction. I thought you were a ‘big’ man. That is, ‘big’ in generosity of intellect.

I know that you appear to make a virtue out of opposition especially if I’m involved. I rather thought that you were ‘big’ enough to admit that maybe, just maybe, a useful point had been made.

..perhaps I am the only one or, one of very few, who is affected or, thinks in this way.

Indeed

A good note on which to wind up this fruitless discussion.

Cheers. 🙂

Moggy

Re 61

You must be the only one who is confused !

I’ve gone into the technical limitations of the relevant AIP, which limitations are, in the real world, farcical. They are there however for a reason – a legal reason.

You cannot objectively test whether or not you are VMC or IMC compliant but, and it is an important ‘but’, subjectively you can, and that, is what most of us do because visual observation is the key.

If you apply the letter of the law to my original assertion of ‘no VMC on top’ the ‘letter’ fails because the provisions of the AIP can’t be applied because they can’t be checked. It is impossible. If you can’t see the ground or a defined horizon then you are IMC. An uncheckable distance from cloud provides no answer.

I think that the AIP needs revision to exclude unrealistic measurements. A simple VMC rule to “remain vertically and horizontally clear of cloud and in possession of a defined horizon in sight of the ground” is uncomplicated and unambiguous. It permits no misunderstanding.

Yesterday, I flew to the West Country. The weather was variable to say the least. One minute it was IMC the next, VMC and so it continued for most of the flight. It was impossible to measure accurately vertical and horizontal clearance from cloud in order to comply with the AIP.

The thought has crossed my mind – not a long journey – that perhaps I am the only one or, one of very few, who is affected or, thinks in this way.

For the last ten years or so I have used my compulsory ‘instructor hour’ to fly my own aircraft, under foggles, and practice instrument flight and recovery from unusual attitudes with limited panel.

I really am totally confused as to John’s point, if there is one.

Moggy

John and Moggy both have valid positions. I admit to having been uncertain of my legal VFR status on more than one occasion in my early days of flying. Usually because I failed to do the correct thing early on. So this debate has been thought provoking for me. Making the right decision about weather is not really taught under the PPL. If you fly with a flying club the instructors usually make sure you don’t go off in dodgy weather. For those in self-oned microlights or extra-lite aeroplanes (as in the crash that started this topic) the pilot has to fall back on his or her judgement.

Here’s a thought though. Given that instrument training & practice can be done these days on one’s own computer using software, why isn’t there more emphasis on a basic T panel practice with the aim to rescue yourself from inadvertent flight into IMC conditions, and recovery from a bad attitude.

Mark A

Why would you want to call a end to an good humoured and interesting joust with a bit of edge to it?

Life isn’t intended to be sugar and spice and all things nice. My fellow debaters aren’t fools. They have their point as indeed do I and hopefully their is something to be gained for each participant.

Excellent ! Keep a copy of the relevant AIP in your cockpit and if you run into trouble, it’ll provide you with the means of escape !

Can we call an end to this debate?

We fly with at least three sets of limitations: those of the law, those of the aircraft and its equipment and, most importantly, those of the pilot’s skills and experience.

You can go inadvertently into instrument conditions, especially at night. That’s why there is an element of instrument training in the PPL syllabus (although it emphasises the 180 turn which isn’t always the best way of regaining VMC).

But more accidents are caused by people deliberately continuing into instrument conditions without the appropriate skills and/or equipment.

We never get to know all the details of accidents like this and have to rely on the skills of the investigator to determine probable cause and make any recommendations as a consequence.

Fly safely and always keep a bolt-hole or two in reserve.

I never am.

But I do keep up to date with things like the AIP and am aware of the differences between VMC, VFR, IFR and IMC.

If I were you I would too.

It may save your life.

Moggy

VeeOne

That’s about right. We’ll all do what ever it takes to save the necks of ourselves and our passengers.

Moggy C

It couldn’t be plainer. Use commonsense. Don’t be beset by dogma.

Follow my advice – it could save your life.

I am sure I would, but I am unclear at this stage precisely what your advice is.

:confused:

Moggy

I agree with the technical/legal assessment of Moggy but I have to say I think John Green is talking about the ‘spirit’ of the situation. And this is the guiding path we would follow if in that genuine situation. I doubt many VFR pilots would consider a precise (technical/legal) consideration of the AIP once they are beyond their legal licence privaliges. More likely, they would feel their way through the situation using the ‘spirit’ of the rules.

The Air Nav Order is a legal document and to stay within the letter of the law it must be followed. But in real-world situations – let’s be honest, boys, we follow our best interests and safety needs. And after we land we don’t talk too much about how we diverged from the letter of the law.

If we do this and end up with the CAA taking court action against us then so be it but I have never considered the letter of the law when I have been forced to make difficult decisions during flight. I have always been guided by the spirit of the rules and how they can be interpreted for best air safety.

Because I can promise you, if anything goes wrong, as the legal Captain of the flight, you will be responsible. However closely you stick to the letter of the law. You will still get the blame, probably in a You vs. CAA court case. So the only sensible thing is to do what you need to do to keep the flight safe.

So, I don’t think it matters about strict ‘letter of law’ interpretations because the real world of British weather doesn’t care a jot for them. It will kill you if you get it wrong. The best course of action is to give a wide berth away from those conditions that might switch on you and force you into illegal conditions. But once you are there do what you feel is the safest course of action and stuff the letter of the law. 🙂

Woowww… a bit controversial – sorry for any offence. 😉

So to sum up (speaking as a non pilot).

There are rules and regulations which should be adhered to, for yours and
others safety. Although there will be times when through no fault of your
own, you are going to have to ever so slightly bend those rules, when the
wish for self preservation kicks in ? Especially if flying solo.

Follow my advice – it could save your life.

None of which alters the fact that your statement…

With or without instrument training if you’re ‘on top’ you’ll be IFR.

… is wholly incorrect.

Moggy