Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 08:26:10 AM
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 08:42:54 AM
I believe the IR should be treated like a CFI certificate in that annually the holder of an IR must take a ground course (much like a FIRC) and then also demonstrate an IPC to continue the privileges of the IR. Then through out the year one must maintain currency to operate.
Let the IR annual requirement lapse, then to reinstate one must attend the required training (classroom or internet) and perform the IPC with a designated individual.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 30, 2019, 08:49:39 AM
Don't understand what you're diving at.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2019, 08:54:17 AM
Post by: Username on October 30, 2019, 08:56:45 AM
Never regretted the IR training and study. I'm sure that it's made me a better pilot (communication, discipline, systems management), along with the sailplane training (energy management) and tailwheel training (the rudder pedals are actually useful). Good luck!!
Post by: Anthony on October 30, 2019, 09:19:37 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2019, 09:25:43 AM
How many times have VFR pilots flown in conditions beyond his ability? Wind, windshear, gusts, have knocked pilots around.
Mountain flying have claimed a lot of lives when the pilot was not well-versed in the challenges.
And let's not forget the risks of flying an aircraft more complex than the pilot is proficient with (and, no, I'm not invoking the MLOD).
Ultimately, aren't we talking about risk management?
At what point do we trust that the pilot can make decisions for himself with respect to his ability to handle current conditions?
Post by: Rush on October 30, 2019, 10:47:04 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2019, 10:48:17 AM
Post by: Rush on October 30, 2019, 10:49:45 AM
I'm wondering why single-engine, multi-engine, makes any difference wrt instrument flying...
With multi you have more options to continue flying, and when you can't see the ground that's a good thing.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 10:51:20 AM
Isn't that how it is now? If you don't "maintain" it per the FAR, then you have to do an IPC.
Don't understand what you're diving at.
Right now IR rated pilots are not required to do any type of recurrent ground training. None whatsoever. Weather, ATC, procedures, FAR, etc need to be reviewed. An online course would satisfy this.
Second, an actual IPC. Not a buddy CFI just riding along. Actually perform to the standards of the ACS. No failure, but no sign off until meeting standards.
Right now someone can get an IR and never take a check again, and no requirement to stay current on any ground subject.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2019, 11:35:13 AM
With multi you have more options to continue flying, and when you can't see the ground that's a good thing.
well, of course (at the potential cost of complexity). But it seemed you were balancing the number of engines with the IR stuff in the panel.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2019, 11:38:05 AM
Right now IR rated pilots are not required to do any type of recurrent ground training. None whatsoever. Weather, ATC, procedures, FAR, etc need to be reviewed. An online course would satisfy this.
Second, an actual IPC. Not a buddy CFI just riding along. Actually perform to the standards of the ACS. No failure, but no sign off until meeting standards.
Right now someone can get an IR and never take a check again, and no requirement to stay current on any ground subject.
hmmmm, once I got my instrument rating, every BFR included instrument stuff during the ground review* as well as in flight. Was my CFII being more thorough than required?
*given the work I was doing with CNS/ATM, the instrument stuff during the ground portion was more of a learning opportunity for the instructor.
Post by: nddons on October 30, 2019, 11:39:42 AM
The IR makes you a more precise pilot. Even if you never use it to fly in IMC it's by no means worthless. But I agree you have to stay current and proficient or you will find yourself in trouble. And if you fly GA, especially single engine, you need to install a good IR platform in the cockpit.Exactly. Precise flying is required for the IR, so precision is a learned skill that you can exercise with every flight you ever take, even (and especially) a Saturday morning pancake run.
Post by: nddons on October 30, 2019, 11:53:24 AM
Right now IR rated pilots are not required to do any type of recurrent ground training. None whatsoever. Weather, ATC, procedures, FAR, etc need to be reviewed. An online course would satisfy this.You have a lot of factual errors here.
Second, an actual IPC. Not a buddy CFI just riding along. Actually perform to the standards of the ACS. No failure, but no sign off until meeting standards.
Right now someone can get an IR and never take a check again, and no requirement to stay current on any ground subject.
It is true that a current and proficient IR pilot doesn’t have to take an IPC, but if he’s shooting 6 approaches every 6 months and is playing in the system regularly, by design he is meeting the spirit of the rules for staying proficient.
The FAA has a 30-page publication on IPCs, which by the way must be conducted by a CFII, and meet the PTS standards. It recommends a minimum of 90 minutes on the ground and 2 hours in the air.
At the end of the day, no CFII really wants his signature in your logbook sending you out to play in the clouds if he’s not confident you aren’t going to auger into a schoolyard during recess.
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/media/IPC_Guidance.pdf
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 01:13:54 PM
You have a lot of factual errors here.
It is true that a current and proficient IR pilot doesn’t have to take an IPC, but if he’s shooting 6 approaches every 6 months and is playing in the system regularly, by design he is meeting the spirit of the rules for staying proficient.
The FAA has a 30-page publication on IPCs, which by the way must be conducted by a CFII, and meet the PTS standards. It recommends a minimum of 90 minutes on the ground and 2 hours in the air.
At the end of the day, no CFII really wants his signature in your logbook sending you out to play in the clouds if he’s not confident you aren’t going to auger into a schoolyard during recess.
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/media/IPC_Guidance.pdf
I'm fully aware of what's required for an IPC for the person giving it and the person receiving.
Most of GA at the private pilot level is an honor system type of arrangement. True, while the FAA does provide IPC guidance, it's not mandatory a CFII follow it. A good competent CFII would most certainly use it, bit this is not always true. For an IPC all the pilot needs is a CFII to fill out his logbook indicating it took place. As to the quality? Again, very subjective.
The 6/6 rule is again, on the honor system, and again what was the quality of those approaches and time spent in IFR?
Don't kid yourself that some of these guys flying around out there in the system are competent. Spend enough time on frequency and you'll hear all sorts of buffoonery going on. I applaud those who take this seriously and try to comply with the regulations, and common sense, but you do have those who look for anyway they can find to work around the system. Which is back to my point of standardizing the training and currency requirements.
The NTSB files will fill up this winter with a few of those who get in to something they can't handle.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 01:15:06 PM
what problem are you trying to address?
People operating in the NAS that aren't up to speed, i.e. have a rating, but aren't proficient to operate it.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 01:18:02 PM
I'm wondering why single-engine, multi-engine, makes any difference wrt instrument flying...
I'd rather be in a twin flying IFR. Dual systems and redundancy. Single engine, one vacuum pump, one AI, one alternator? No thanks.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 01:21:59 PM
hmmmm, once I got my instrument rating, every BFR included instrument stuff during the ground review* as well as in flight. Was my CFII being more thorough than required?
Sounds like a conscientious instructor. ;)
*given the work I was doing with CNS/ATM, the instrument stuff during the ground portion was more of a learning opportunity for the instructor.
CNS/ATM?
Post by: Anthony on October 30, 2019, 01:22:56 PM
I'd rather be in a twin flying IFR. Dual systems and redundancy. Single engine, one vacuum pump, one AI, one alternator? No thanks.
Single engine in a twin in IMC isn't my idea of a good time either.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 01:25:23 PM
Single engine in a twin in IMC isn't my idea of a good time either.
How about single engine with an engine failure in IMC?
Post by: Steingar on October 30, 2019, 01:26:07 PM
For me, now that I have a complex aircraft that I want to use as a traveling machine I feel it mandatory. Traveling in a fast airplane you hit weather. All the IFR pilots I own say that the majority of their flying is in VMC. Problem is its the minority of the time in the clag that kills you.
Right now I spend a couple hours every evening studying for the written. I've done a few approaches and some hood time sans approaches, and while I suck I am getting better. I've been down for some maintenance and crap weather, but I hope to get in my shakedown flight this weekend (I ALWAYS follow maintenance with shakedown flight. Only bad thing is my airport is busy enough that I don't want to remain in the area flying in circles near the runway). Once that's done it's time to get back into it. I don't expect this to happen fast, I doubt I'll get to fly that much over the winter. But I'll keep it going, and I'll get there.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 01:38:53 PM
My IR rated buddies all get approaches and IFR stuff for their BFR's if they're taking them seriously. My last BFR was from my CFU rated passenger after we got back from Oshkosh.
CFU rated passenger?
Post by: Rush on October 30, 2019, 01:45:44 PM
well, of course (at the potential cost of complexity). But it seemed you were balancing the number of engines with the IR stuff in the panel.
Yeah I see what you mean. I wasn't implying that if you have more than one engine you can get by with a lesser IR stuff in the panel but it did sorta sound that way. ;D
Post by: Rush on October 30, 2019, 01:49:40 PM
My IR rated buddies all get approaches and IFR stuff for their BFR's if they're taking them seriously. My last BFR was from my CFU rated passenger after we got back from Oshkosh. Personally I think he was glad to be alive. I exhibited some masterful airmanship on that trip, but I feel I also exhibited some questionable decision making.
For me, now that I have a complex aircraft that I want to use as a traveling machine I feel it mandatory. Traveling in a fast airplane you hit weather. All the IFR pilots I own say that the majority of their flying isn VMC. Problem is its the minority of the time in the flag that kills you.
Right now I spend a couple hours every evening studying for the written. I've done a few approaches and some hood time sans approaches, and while I suck I am getting better. I've been down for some maintenance and crap weather, but I hope to get in my shakedown flight this weekend (I ALWAYS follow maintenance with shakedown flight. Only bad thing is my airport is busy enough that I don't want to remain in the area flying in circles near the runway). Once that's done it's time to get back into it. I don't expect this to happen fast, I doubt I'll get to fly that much over the winter. But I'll keep it going, and I'll get there.
Exactly. If you're expanding your mission, you really need the IR IMNSHO.
Post by: nddons on October 30, 2019, 01:55:54 PM
I'm fully aware of what's required for an IPC for the person giving it and the person receiving.Geeze. Ok Lucifer, I get it. You want Uncle Sugar to implement new mandatory regulations for anyone flying in the system.
Most of GA at the private pilot level is an honor system type of arrangement. True, while the FAA does provide IPC guidance, it's not mandatory a CFII follow it. A good competent CFII would most certainly use it, bit this is not always true. For an IPC all the pilot needs is a CFII to fill out his logbook indicating it took place. As to the quality? Again, very subjective.
The 6/6 rule is again, on the honor system, and again what was the quality of those approaches and time spent in IFR?
Don't kid yourself that some of these guys flying around out there in the system are competent. Spend enough time on frequency and you'll hear all sorts of buffoonery going on. I applaud those who take this seriously and try to comply with the regulations, and common sense, but you do have those who look for anyway they can find to work around the system. Which is back to my point of standardizing the training and currency requirements.
The NTSB files will fill up this winter with a few of those who get in to something they can't handle.
Personally, I think the current regulatory requirements, including biennial flight reviews, is sufficient. The idiot who takes his family in night IMC over the Smokey Mountains who isn’t on top of his game will always exist. New regs won’t help that.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 02:08:13 PM
Geeze. Ok Lucifer, I get it. You want Uncle Sugar to implement new mandatory regulations for anyone flying in the system.
Personally, I think the current regulatory requirements, including biennial flight reviews, is sufficient. The idiot who takes his family in night IMC over the Smokey Mountains who isn’t on top of his game will always exist. New regs won’t help that.
And we disagree. I've always felt the recreational GA pilot regs were too lax and allows for people to get a rating and never have to prove proficiency ever again, or even maintain any sort of recurrency. I've witnessed BFR's that were pencil whipped, and know of pilots filing and flying in the system who have no business being there.
And you are correct, eventually those types, it will catch up to them. Usually fatally.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2019, 03:48:46 PM
CNS/ATM?
Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management.
The ground systems and avionics coming down the pipeline.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2019, 03:52:23 PM
I'd rather be in a twin flying IFR. Dual systems and redundancy. Single engine, one vacuum pump, one AI, one alternator? No thanks.
I know pilot (I won't drop his name) that won't do night IFR in a single. He fully understands risk management, probabilities of failures, etc, but yet wants the 2nd engine. His choice.
I think I'd rather fly a Cessna 210 in IMC than an old tired Piper Apache.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 30, 2019, 03:54:41 PM
And we disagree. I've always felt the recreational GA pilot regs were too lax and allows for people to get a rating and never have to prove proficiency ever again, or even maintain any sort of recurrency. I've witnessed BFR's that were pencil whipped, and know of pilots filing and flying in the system who have no business being there.
And you are correct, eventually those types, it will catch up to them. Usually fatally.
I assume by "recreational" you don't mean Sport Pilot or whatever, but rather the non-professional pilot.
Pencil-whipped BFRs are a problem with non-IR rated pilots too.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 03:57:57 PM
I assume by "recreational" you don't mean Sport Pilot or whatever, but rather the non-professional pilot.
Correct
Pencil-whipped BFRs are a problem with non-IR rated pilots too.
Agreed.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 04:00:05 PM
I know pilot (I won't drop his name) that won't do night IFR in a single. He fully understands risk management, probabilities of failures, etc, but yet wants the 2nd engine. His choice.
I think I'd rather fly a Cessna 210 in IMC than an old tired Piper Apache.
If that 210 had two independent attitude sources, and a backup alternator, sure, light IFR.
BTW, Apaches are cool old airplanes. :D
Post by: Little Joe on November 03, 2019, 05:50:27 PM
I'd rather be in a twin flying IFR. Dual systems and redundancy. Single engine, one vacuum pump, one AI, one alternator? No thanks.I feel safer in my single engine, single vacuum pump, single alternator GA airplane that I did driving from Florida to Tennessee last weekend. I saw several bad wrecks, including a car smashed underneath an 18 wheeler on I75 North and a 40 mile backup on I24 East.
If you have evidence of a problem that you are trying to fix, tell us about it. Otherwise, you sound like a Democrat that just "feels" like we need to do something to solve a problem that might not even exist.
Post by: Lucifer on November 03, 2019, 05:58:55 PM
I feel safer in my single engine, single vacuum pump, single alternator GA airplane that I did driving from Florida to Tennessee last weekend. I saw several bad wrecks, including a car smashed underneath an 18 wheeler on I75 North and a 40 mile backup on I24 East.
If you have evidence of a problem that you are trying to fix, tell us about it. Otherwise, you sound like a Democrat that just "feels" like we need to do something to solve a problem that might not even exist.
It's called a discussion. Obviously I don't have the power to change anything.
You say "a problem that doesn't exist". BULLSHIT!
The NTSB files are full of GA IFR related accidents. Go over to NTSB.GOV and start reading. We've had a few in just the past weeks.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 03, 2019, 06:41:15 PM
It's called a discussion. Obviously I don't have the power to change anything.
You say "a problem that doesn't exist". BULLSHIT!
The NTSB files are full of GA IFR related accidents. Go over to NTSB.GOV and start reading. We've had a few in just the past weeks.
In the spirit of discussion, what do you think is an acceptable level safety and an acceptable level of risk?
Post by: Lucifer on November 03, 2019, 06:49:04 PM
In the spirit of discussion, what do you think is an acceptable level safety and an acceptable level of risk?
I believe I went over that earlier in the thread.
I would think mandatory recurrent training (ground) annually, with a pass/fail test. Fail it, review the material failed and retake that portion. Then a flight portion covering a precision, two non precision approaches, a hold, missed procedure, etc.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 04, 2019, 04:54:56 AM
I believe I went over that earlier in the thread.
I would think mandatory recurrent training (ground) annually, with a pass/fail test. Fail it, review the material failed and retake that portion. Then a flight portion covering a precision, two non precision approaches, a hold, missed procedure, etc.
Above is a process, presumably intended to meet a need. It doesn't describe acceptable risk and acceptable safety.
Could you post to the post where you described acceptable risk and acceptable safety?
Post by: Little Joe on November 04, 2019, 05:43:58 AM
It's called a discussion. Obviously I don't have the power to change anything.Let's see:
You say "a problem that doesn't exist". BULLSHIT!
The NTSB files are full of GA IFR related accidents. Go over to NTSB.GOV and start reading. We've had a few in just the past weeks.
"Immigrant" = "Illegal alien"
"Climate Change" = "Man Made Global Warming"
and now we have:
"a problem that might not even exist" = ""a problem that doesn't exist"
I agree that mandating more training might some (very little) impact on the accident rate.
For one thing, no amount of training will resolve stupidity and stupid decisions.
More requirements and regulations to solve a problem that hasn't even been measured is a very liberal concept, which I can't believe you subscribe to. Sure, you can generate statistics of accidents and provide NTSB reports, but what is the percentage of accidents as a percentage of flight time, and how much will that percentage change with your new rules, regulations and mandates?
How many accidents or fatalities do you think your solution will prevent?
If you want to fix a problem with pilots not staying current, then devise a system that will punish violators instead of punishing compliant pilots. Think of your own arguments about gun control. Would you restrict all gun owners instead of just violators?
All IFR pilots are in contact with ATC. ATC can often tell when someone is incompetent. Perhaps ATC could file reports that might trigger a ramp check or log book review. Or maybe they just log the incidents and put points on the pilots record. When a pilot aggregates enough points, then the FAA could contact them to try to determine compliance and competency. But I don't think we have enough evidence of a significant problem even to do that.
Post by: Little Joe on November 04, 2019, 05:45:24 AM
It's called a discussion. Obviously I don't have the power to change anything.Oh yeah, I forgot to add:
You say "a problem that doesn't exist". BULLSHIT!
The NTSB files are full of GA IFR related accidents. Go over to NTSB.GOV and start reading. We've had a few in just the past weeks.
You are aright. It is a discussion. "BULLSHIT!" is not a valid discussion technique.
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 06:19:38 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot to add:
You are aright. It is a discussion. "BULLSHIT!" is not a valid discussion technique.
First of all, you;re trying to intertwine car accidents and politics into a discussion on GA pilots and the instrument rating. Then you're trying to claim there is no need, everything is hunky dory even though we still have pilots ending up in smoking holes.
The FAA sets a minimum standard. When it comes to GA, much of it is on the honor system, and we see the results. If you're fine with that, then proceed.
Finally, I find it amusing when mentioning training to a GA pilot they get defensive.
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 06:20:37 AM
Above is a process, presumably intended to meet a need. It doesn't describe acceptable risk and acceptable safety.
Care to elaborate?
Post by: Little Joe on November 04, 2019, 06:53:47 AM
First of all, you;re trying to intertwine car accidents and politics into a discussion on GA pilots and the instrument rating.There is nothing wrong or unusual with using comparisons, unless you know you are wrong and just trying to muddy the water. If you want to save lives you would save a lot more by stringent driver testing and highway law enforcement.
Quote
Then you're trying to claim there is no need, everything is hunky dory even though we still have pilots ending up in smoking holes.You have never stated how many smoking holes you think your proposal will prevent.
Quote
The FAA sets a minimum standard. When it comes to GA, much of it is on the honor system, and we see the results. If you're fine with that, then proceed.You have never quantified what those results are. Those "minimum" standards (for IR) are already quite substantial. Perhaps I could agree with strengthening the rigorousness of the testing and check ride, but your proposal goes over the top for no defined reason, except that you "feel" like it might fix something.
Quote
Finally, I find it amusing when mentioning training to a GA pilot they get defensive.Especially when it is espoused by non-pilots or aircraft owners.
Every IR pilot I know has said they thought the training to get that rating has made them a better pilot. So your claim that GA pilots get defensive when training is mentioned is BULLSHIT!. But they might get defensive when you try to claim that they are all insufficiently trained.
If you really want a plan to eliminate all GA accidents, then perhaps you should crusade to ban all General Aviation. That way you will make the MMGW folks happy too while lowering sea levels.
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 06:59:20 AM
There is nothing wrong or unusual with using comparisons, unless you know you are wrong and just trying to muddy the water. If you want to save lives you would save a lot more by stringent driver testing and highway law enforcement.
You have never stated how many smoking holes you think your proposal will prevent.
You have never quantified what those results are. Those "minimum" standards (for IR) are already quite substantial. Perhaps I could agree with strengthening the rigorousness of the testing and check ride, but your proposal goes over the top for no defined reason, except that you "feel" like it might fix something.
Especially when it is espoused by non-pilots or aircraft owners.
Every IR pilot I know has said they thought the training to get that rating has made them a better pilot. So your claim that GA pilots get defensive when training is mentioned is BULLSHIT!. But they might get defensive when you try to claim that they are all insufficiently trained.
If you really want a plan to eliminate all GA accidents, then perhaps you should crusade to ban all General Aviation. That way you will make the MMGW folks happy too while lowering sea levels.
Now you're just becoming irrational, and making claims that have no merit.
Post by: Anthony on November 04, 2019, 06:59:44 AM
There is nothing wrong or unusual with using comparisons, unless you know you are wrong and just trying to muddy the water. If you want to save lives you would save a lot more by stringent driver testing and highway law enforcement.
You have never stated how many smoking holes you think your proposal will prevent.
You have never quantified what those results are. Those "minimum" standards (for IR) are already quite substantial. Perhaps I could agree with strengthening the rigorousness of the testing and check ride, but your proposal goes over the top for no defined reason, except that you "feel" like it might fix something.
Especially when it is espoused by non-pilots or aircraft owners.
Every IR pilot I know has said they thought the training to get that rating has made them a better pilot. So your claim that GA pilots get defensive when training is mentioned is BULLSHIT!. But they might get defensive when you try to claim that they are all insufficiently trained.
If you really want a plan to eliminate all GA accidents, then perhaps you should crusade to ban all General Aviation. That way you will make the MMGW folks happy too while lowering sea levels.
Agree on all points. Well said!
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 07:02:34 AM
I just did an NTSB search, looking for 10 years back, GA flights fatal and involving instrument flight. 263 hits came back, and so far this year we've had 10.
Post by: Little Joe on November 04, 2019, 07:06:47 AM
Now you're just becoming irrational, and making claims that have no merit.Speaking of irrational claims with no merit; your argument is the definition of that.
Please back up with actual facts what you think your proposal will accomplish?
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 07:12:36 AM
Speaking of irrational claims with no merit; your argument is the definition of that.
Please back up with actual facts what you think your proposal will accomplish?
Increased safety. It's a fact recurrency training increases safety.
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 07:23:37 AM
Quote
On March 14, 2019, at 1815 eastern daylight time, a Mooney M20C, N6075Q, departed controlled flight and collided with mountainous terrain near Cashiers, North Carolina. The commercial pilot was fatally injured and the airplane was destroyed. Day instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the personal flight which was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight departed Knoxville Downtown Island Airport (DKX), Knoxville, Tennessee, at 1724, and was enroute to Aiken Regional Airport (AIK), Aiken, South Carolina.
Preliminary information obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and a commercial vendor revealed that the pilot obtained a weather briefing the night before the flight. He filed his IFR flight plan through a commercial service on the day of the accident. After departure the airplane was observed on radar climbing and on course to AIK. While in cruise flight the pilot reported to air traffic control that he had "lost his attitude indicator" and was unable to maintain course and attitude. Radar contact and radio communication was lost shortly after.
The pilot, age 59, held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, and instrument airplane. He held an FAA-issued second-class medical certificate with no limitations. The pilot reported that his flight experience included 1,957.9 total flight hours and 14.8 hours in the last six months on his most-recent medical examination application, dated July 24, 2018. A review of the pilot's logbook revealed that he had accumulated 279 flight hours in actual instrument conditions. The logbook also revealed that from June 2017 to December 2018 the pilot had accumulated 8 flight hours of actual instrument flight time. He recorded 1,662 total hours of experience in the accident airplane make and model.
So why was he unable to "maintain course and altitude"? Perhaps the only time he ever saw partial panel training was before he got his IR? What about training on ADM and RM? Think if he had a refresher on that it may have made him think about the consequences of a single failure leading to a fatal accident?
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 07:32:28 AM
Quote
On February 1, 2019, about 1315 eastern standard time, and about 20 miles east of West Palm Beach, Florida, radar contact was lost with a Piper PA-32RT-300, N3016L. The private pilot and the passenger were presumed fatally injured. The airplane was presumed to have been destroyed upon impact with the Atlantic Ocean. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the flight which departed Palm Beach County Park Airport (LNA) about 1300 and was destined for Leonard M. Thompson International Airport (MHH), Marsh Harbour, The Bahamas. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
A preliminary review of voice, radar, and weather data revealed that the airplane departed LNA under visual flight rules and obtained an IFR clearance shortly after takeoff. The airplane was cleared to progressively higher altitudes and provided vectors to avoid "cells" and "areas of heavy precipitation" in its flight path but diverged from assigned headings.
The controller queried the pilot about his inability to maintain assigned headings, and the pilot reported that his autopilot "had kicked off" and that "the winds are really weird up here." He also reported unspecified "problems" with the autopilot. About 1310, the airplane slowed to about 70 knots groundspeed on a northeasterly heading before it began an accelerating 90-degree right turn to the south. The airplane then performed a 180-degree left turn to the north before turning right to an easterly, generally on-course heading. About 1813, the airplane entered a left turn that varied in groundspeed and altitude when the controller again asked, "…appears you've turned back to the northwest and...are you going to turn back eastbound?"
The pilot replied, "I don't know what's going on up here. I'm working on instruments…acting really goofy here. I'll come around to 090 [degrees] again." The controller advised the pilot to try to maintain 6,000 ft. and cautioned him to go no higher than 7,000 ft and added "looks like you are getting pushed up in the updrafts." The pilot did not acknowledge the controller, and there were no further communications from the airplane.
Shortly thereafter, the airplane turned and descended from a northerly heading sharply to its right. The radar track tightened to the right as the target rapidly descended then disappeared about 1315 in an area that depicted heavy precipitation.
According to FAA airman records, the pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land and instrument airplane. The pilot's most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued March 2, 2017. He reported 1,452 total hours of flight experience on that date.
This pilot was relying on his autopilot. Probably had very little if any hand flying experience. Once the autopilot had quit, his task saturation increased dramatically.
Post by: nddons on November 04, 2019, 07:47:40 AM
First of all, you;re trying to intertwine car accidents and politics into a discussion on GA pilots and the instrument rating. Then you're trying to claim there is no need, everything is hunky dory even though we still have pilots ending up in smoking holes.Flying in the Air Traffic Control system, which is what you do every time you fly on an IFR flight plan, you most certainly not just on the honor system. Your entire flight, short of a visual approach to landing, is under the watchful eye of ATC. Have a significant departure in altitude, heading, or instrument approach and you just may be asked to copy a phone number after you land.
The FAA sets a minimum standard. When it comes to GA, much of it is on the honor system, and we see the results. If you're fine with that, then proceed.
Finally, I find it amusing when mentioning training to a GA pilot they get defensive.
Because of that, most instrument pilots take their 6 in 6 responsibilities seriously. Further, flying in IMC involves more risk than other aviation activities, and I have yet to know of a pilot who is anxious to be the first person on the scene of their own death.
Regarding your last comment, that’s BS. Many of us got our IR in order to make us better pilots, even if we don’t plan to fly a lot of IMC. We incurred significant time and significant cost in order to improve ourselves. Yet in a different thread you said getting the instrument rating is less than worthless if you don’t fly on instruments. Make up your mind.
What GA pilots DO reject is incurring unreasonable costs with little demonstrable benefit. Annual written testing is just that.
When I was a student pilot Scott Crossfield ripped the wings off his Cessna 210 (I believe) in a thunderstorm over the Appalachians. I sincerely doubt a written test would have changed his decision making process. Somethings, shit happens.
But like most conservatives, pilots don’t want a “feel good” fix that is otherwise meaningless.
Post by: Little Joe on November 04, 2019, 08:57:16 AM
But like most conservatives, pilots don’t want a “feel good” fix that is otherwise meaningless.Your whole post was spot-on, but this sentence seems to wrap it up.
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 09:16:29 AM
Flying in the Air Traffic Control system, which is what you do every time you fly on an IFR flight plan, you most certainly not just on the honor system. Your entire flight, short of a visual approach to landing, is under the watchful eye of ATC. Have a significant departure in altitude, heading, or instrument approach and you just may be asked to copy a phone number after you land.
Because of that, most instrument pilots take their 6 in 6 responsibilities seriously. Further, flying in IMC involves more risk than other aviation activities, and I have yet to know of a pilot who is anxious to be the first person on the scene of their own death.
Regarding your last comment, that’s BS. Many of us got our IR in order to make us better pilots, even if we don’t plan to fly a lot of IMC. We incurred significant time and significant cost in order to improve ourselves. Yet in a different thread you said getting the instrument rating is less than worthless if you don’t fly on instruments. Make up your mind.
What GA pilots DO reject is incurring unreasonable costs with little demonstrable benefit. Annual written testing is just that.
When I was a student pilot Scott Crossfield ripped the wings off his Cessna 210 (I believe) in a thunderstorm over the Appalachians. I sincerely doubt a written test would have changed his decision making process. Somethings, shit happens.
But like most conservatives, pilots don’t want a “feel good” fix that is otherwise meaningless.
So training isn’t beneficial?
Who would be more proficient? A guy who got his IR 20 years ago, flies in the IFR system infrequently, and has never had a IPC, or a pilot who gained his IR at the same time, attends regular (annual) training (ground) covering pertinent subjects, and foes a meaningful IPC each year?
BTW, ATC does do PD’s on pilots who get into the system and start doing things wrong. These are a common occurrence, go talk to a FAAsteam rep. Lots of these are pilots who don’t feel they need any training beyond what it took to get an IR.
And safety does have a price tag. That’s why I made the decision to fly a twin in IFR and also spend the money to remain proficient.
Post by: Little Joe on November 04, 2019, 09:38:19 AM
So training isn’t beneficial?Absolutely nobody said that. But there is a law of diminishing returns.
Quote
And safety does have a price tag.And absolutely nobody said otherwise. That doesn't mean that cost is not a factor.
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 09:47:22 AM
Absolutely nobody said that. But there is a law of diminishing returns.And absolutely nobody said otherwise. That doesn't mean that cost is not a factor.
So what amount of recurrent type training is too much? What’s the diminishing return?
Cost is a factor anywhere in aviation. Would you rather spend $1000 on the latest coolest headset or use that money to keep proficient?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 04, 2019, 10:36:21 AM
Care to elaborate?
what part didn't you understand?
Post by: nddons on November 04, 2019, 11:05:54 AM
Absolutely nobody said that. But there is a law of diminishing returns.And absolutely nobody said otherwise. That doesn't mean that cost is not a factor.Maybe Lucifer was just thinking of this guy. If so, I concur. He needs an annual test and all will be better.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191104/cf823585bccd34337e9ac680acfae54a.jpg)
Post by: Little Joe on November 04, 2019, 11:13:18 AM
So what amount of recurrent type training is too much? What’s the diminishing return?I'd rather make that decision for myself than have the government make it for me.
Cost is a factor anywhere in aviation. Would you rather spend $1000 on the latest coolest headset or use that money to keep proficient?
I think the "6 in 6" is a good number. Personally my wife and I do more than that.
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 11:40:25 AM
Maybe Lucifer was just thinking of this guy. If so, I concur. He needs an annual test and all will be better.
]
Just curious Stan. I know you fly warbirds on the side. When you got checked out in the PT-22 (?) are you done? Will the group you’re flying with not require any additional training?
Post by: nddons on November 04, 2019, 01:48:23 PM
Just curious Stan. I know you fly warbirds on the side. When you got checked out in the PT-22 (?) are you done? Will the group you’re flying with not require any additional training?It’s a Fairchild PT-26 Cornell, and yes, the CAF required an annual checkride to commercial PTS standards. We also take an annual ground school with a written test. The standards are high because of what we are flying - we fly pieces of history. Also, let’s be honest. The biggest driver of our standards is the CAF insurance policy. Still, those requirements haven’t prevented some people from doing really stupid stuff like running out of fuel.
My greatest fear in flying a CAF Warbird is not dying in a crash; it’s being “that guy” who wrecks a piece of history.
Except for some multi-engine aircraft, we are restricted to day VFR.
Required crew members are also required to wear Nomex flight suits, and its recommended but not required for all pax.
So let me ask a question: It is proven that Nomex flight suits help you survive a crash by minimizing the pain and agony of a flash fire from burning 100LL giving you time to get out alive.
So, why don’t we wear them when we fly a 172? Certainly having 100LL sitting in a wing above your head is not ideal for survivability, as an 18-year old CAP cadets found out when she crashed on a golf course and succumbed to fire.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1960964/Video-18-year-old-pilot-dies-crash-landing-golf-course.html
We don’t because we make a calculated risk that we would rather not look like dorks stepping out of a Skyhawk and sauntering into an FBO than if we were to burn to death in a crash.
So we take safety steps relative to the risk involved. We also do have substantial training and recurrent training for flying IFR (via 6 in 6 or IPCs, as well as BFRs) to help prevent us from becoming smoking holes in the ground. I just don’t think MORE government-mandated requirements are needed to move the needle in IR safety. Your NTSB examples are anecdotal and don’t reveal the actual causes of a crash in IMC.
So trust me, I’m all for training and taking measures steps to improve safety. I just don’t think an annual written test will do anything.
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 01:56:48 PM
It’s a Fairchild PT-26 Cornell, and yes, the CAF required an annual checkride to commercial PTS standards. We also take an annual ground school with a written test. The standards are high because of what we are flying - we fly pieces of history. Also, let’s be honest. The biggest driver of our standards is the CAF insurance policy. Still, those requirements haven’t prevented some people from doing really stupid stuff like running out of fuel.
My greatest fear in flying a CAF Warbird is not dying in a crash; it’s being “that guy” who wrecks a piece of history.
Except for some multi-engine aircraft, we are restricted to day VFR.
Required crew members are also required to wear Nomex flight suits, and its recommended but not required for all pax.
So let me ask a question: It is proven that Nomex flight suits help you survive a crash by minimizing the pain and agony of a flash fire from burning 100LL giving you time to get out alive.
So, why don’t we wear them when we fly a 172? Certainly having 100LL sitting in a wing above your head is not ideal for survivability, as an 18-year old CAP cadets found out when she crashed on a golf course and succumbed to fire.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1960964/Video-18-year-old-pilot-dies-crash-landing-golf-course.html
We don’t because we make a calculated risk that we would rather not look like dorks stepping out of a Skyhawk and sauntering into an FBO than if we were to burn to death in a crash.
So we take safety steps relative to the risk involved. We also do have substantial training and recurrent training for flying IFR (via 6 in 6 or IPCs, as well as BFRs) to help prevent us from becoming smoking holes in the ground. I just don’t think MORE government-mandated requirements are needed to move the needle in IR safety. Your NTSB examples are anecdotal and don’t reveal the actual causes of a crash in IMC.
So trust me, I’m all for training and taking measures steps to improve safety. I just don’t think an annual written test will do anything.
Thanks.
So the FAR’s only require a tailwheel endorsement to be PIC. No additional training, no additional checks. But your organization requires these and, to Commercial Pilot Standards. And if there were no insurance requirements, would they still require it?
Obviously you don’t fly these for free. There’s a cost involved, which you are bearing. So there is an additional standard to be maintained which also has a cost factor. Correct?
Why not just take the FAR’s and show them where they are wrong? I mean, you obviously passed the tailwheel and aircraft checkout, so no need for any additional training, at least by the FAR.
BTW, thanks for the write up. Most of us aren’t involved in that community and have little insight into the operations.
Post by: Anthony on November 04, 2019, 03:20:24 PM
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 03:56:08 PM
I concur with the Prince of Darkness (as a former MG owner, multiple times I am quite familiar with you). No I'm not that old, I had them well after their prime in the U.S., but I digress. I concur on the thanks to Stan for the insight into flying Warbirds. The rest of us only dream about it and occasionally get to pretend the Grumman has a 20MM cannon firing through the propeller hub. :)
Triumph and MG guy here as well.
Q: Why do the British drink their beer warm?
A: Lucas builds their refrigerators.
Post by: Anthony on November 04, 2019, 04:10:39 PM
Triumph and MG guy here as well.
Q: Why do the British drink their beer warm?
A: Lucas builds their refrigerators.
I had a 61 MGA, a 68 MGB, and a 78 Triumph Bonneville 750. The bike was by far the most reliable. Lucas.....Prince of Darkness! The Triumph was actually very reliable, low maintenance, and never gave me any problems. Yes, it dripped a little oil, but so what. :)
Post by: Lucifer on November 04, 2019, 05:35:58 PM
I had a 61 MGA, a 68 MGB, and a 78 Triumph Bonneville 750. The bike was by far the most reliable. Lucas.....Prince of Darkness! The Triumph was actually very reliable, low maintenance, and never gave me any problems. Yes, it dripped a little oil, but so what. :)
Marking it's territory. ;D
Post by: nddons on November 04, 2019, 06:11:44 PM
Marking it's territory. ;DTriumphs use a Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp engine too?
Post by: Anthony on November 05, 2019, 04:32:19 AM
Triumphs use a Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp engine too?
Drip pans are your friend. At one point the Triumph was my only transportation. Just out of college, lost, contemplating grad school which I soon did, bartending and playing in a rock band. I had a first floor apartment with a patio and sliding glass doors. The bike came into the living room and resided there with me with a drip pan under it. :)
Best roommate ever, including all of my ex wives. :)
Post by: Rush on November 05, 2019, 07:37:41 AM
This pilot was relying on his autopilot. Probably had very little if any hand flying experience. Once the autopilot had quit, his task saturation increased dramatically.
This is the exact scenario that scares the bejeesus out of me. Relying too much on autopilot as habit, letting your IMC hand flying skills decay, and they decay very rapidly. I agree written tests probably don't do much to improve safety, unless in the process of preparing for a written, it reminds pilots to get physically current, but somehow I doubt many pilots say, "Okay I need to retake a written, let me go get a bunch of sim time or partial panel hood time with an instructor." I just don't buy it.
These accidents happen not because the pilot didn't understand the regs. They happen because his inner ear gets screwed up, he fails to believe the instruments, OR he has a failure and cannot manage partial panel. In addition, bad judgment, when get-there-itis pushes you to take off in bad weather despite you knowing you're a tad rusty.
Complacency is a hard enemy to fight. No one wants to believe his finely honed skills slip in mere weeks. Hand flying IMC is very much a neuro-physical exercise which needs lots of regular practice.
Post by: Lucifer on November 05, 2019, 08:02:30 AM
This is the exact scenario that scares the bejeesus out of me. Relying too much on autopilot as habit, letting your IMC hand flying skills decay, and they decay very rapidly. I agree written tests probably don't do much to improve safety, unless in the process of preparing for a written, it reminds pilots to get physically current, but somehow I doubt many pilots say, "Okay I need to retake a written, let me go get a bunch of sim time or partial panel hood time with an instructor." I just don't buy it.
These accidents happen not because the pilot didn't understand the regs. They happen because his inner ear gets screwed up, he fails to believe the instruments, OR he has a failure and cannot manage partial panel. In addition, bad judgment, when get-there-itis pushes you to take off in bad weather despite you knowing you're a tad rusty.
Complacency is a hard enemy to fight. No one wants to believe his finely honed skills slip in mere weeks. Hand flying IMC is very much a neuro-physical exercise which needs lots of regular practice.
Let's be clear here: I never stated a written test would be the solution. I did state that recurrent training on pertinent subjects would go a long way in helping. Unfortunately, if it was a powerpoint presentation or web presentation, most people would just skip through it to get it done and recorded. This is why I suggested a written exam at the end to gauge knowledge. Not a canned multiple choice written either. Just enough to see if there was any knowledge transfer.
I know several pilots that are autopilot crippled and will not fly IFR unless the AP is on the full time. And they suck at hand flying. And some of these do their "6/6" with a safety pilot and while on AP (and they also fly actual).
Partial Panel. How many actually go up and fly true partial panel? Not many. It's not required on a IPC nor is it required to ever be demonstrated after the check ride. Real partial panel can be nerve wracking in actual, especially with an IAP. Yep we have airplanes with a single source AI flying in IMC routinely with a pilot that hasn't seen partial panel in years. What's the RA for that?
We have pilots in the GA community that take this stuff seriously, and prepare for it by going above and beyond with meaningful training and keeping current on all of the subjects. They understand Risk and Risk Management. However, we have others who feel the FAA minimums are just fine for them, and they never look at the risk and how to mitigate them. ATC files PD's everyday on these, and a few make it into a NTSB file.
Post by: Steingar on November 05, 2019, 10:04:28 AM
Thankfully I can bring up a panel on my iPad. I'll have to practice with it under ht hood some time.
Post by: Lucifer on November 05, 2019, 10:11:16 AM
Thing is, partial panel is an emergency. If I get it I expect to fly to the nearest VFR conditions and land. If there is none then I want the easiest approach with the fewest turns to get me down safely. Make no mistake, I (and the FAA) regard it as a true blue emergency. Personally, I think staking my life on a machine with a limited lifespan who's only warning of service limits is to break unpredictably is the height of foolishness. Used to be there was no alternative. There is now. I'll be saving up for either an alternative vacuum or more likely a pair of G5's.
Thankfully I can bring up a panel on my iPad. I'll have to practice with it under ht hood some time.
Correct, it’s an emergency. One that takes skill to accomplish. So the risk is identified (single source AI). What’s the mitigation? To me, the mitigation is not to fly it in IMC without a backup. But that’s me. Others, the mitigation is training to a comfort level in case it ever happens.
On partial panel, once the aircraft passes a certain roll rate, it’s over for most. Partial panel takes skill, and that skill is perishable.
Post by: Number7 on November 14, 2019, 08:31:03 AM
I had a 61 MGA, a 68 MGB, and a 78 Triumph Bonneville 750. The bike was by far the most reliable. Lucas.....Prince of Darkness! The Triumph was actually very reliable, low maintenance, and never gave me any problems. Yes, it dripped a little oil, but so what. :)
Back in the old days, we had a Triumph but it messed up my wife's hair and when the kids came it made no sense to keep it anymore.
The stupid things we do for the kids....
Post by: Mase on November 14, 2019, 10:31:20 AM
Post by: Anthony on November 14, 2019, 10:51:13 AM
I had a Triumph Spitfire back in the 70s. Fun.
When it ran. :)
At one point I had two MGB's. One would not run when it was damp, or raining out. The other would ONLY run if it was damp, or raining out. That's how I got by. lol!
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 14, 2019, 11:05:24 AM
So he broomsticked the catalytic converter out and installed a water injector on the engine. But the water injector needed a water supply, which he provided by commandeering the wiper washer fluid tank, so we had no washer fluid.
I did say I liked men, didn’t I?
🤣