What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

VFR pilot into IMC

... And if the average pilot does make an immediate conscious effort to focus his attention on the instruments, has research shown a "dead zone" time period before reaching full competence?

Dan, can you clarify the term "full competence" in context?
 
May not have been the case with Bugsy's incident, but I've encountered in and out of wispy broken layer at my altitude, when I was in the process of getting my li'l pink butt trapped between a layer above and below. Each of those in-and-outs was so brief it made you think the best bet was to keep straining your eyes horizonward, because this white-out was bound to be momentary like the one that came before; it simply HAD to be so, because this can't be happening to me right now... :(

There is a gradualness to some of these encounters that leads to a delay in accepting the problem and taking the correct action.
 
Hmmmm

Hi Paul,

I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, but I have to say I was surprised by this tone. Yes, this is a learning situation; but scud running is highly dangerous. I think it warrants a review of what could have happened had it not worked out so well. One of those big consequences is killing someone else. I don't think this is preachy, more matter of fact.

Anyway, not to belabor this; but I don't think it makes sense to shut those of us down who were pointing out the consequences of the actions/decision making.

And to the other poster who commented that having an instrument rating doesn't doesn't absolve you of making good decisions -- ya, understood. We all need to take into account our limitations as well as those of the aircraft.

Thanks.

Antony



I'm starting to se some posts here getting a bit "Scoldy", and I'd suggest that is counterproductive in a safety discussion. The OP clearly understands that he made a mistake (one that has been made by, oh.....just about EVERY pilot who has flown long enough to be called experienced...), and he's sharing the experience with the intent to let those who think they know it all and woudl never do anything dumb that yes, indeed, you can stumble into a place you didn't intend to be.

I think that's pretty obvious to most. Stumbling VFR into IFR conditions is bad for everyone. Don't do it. What the OP is going is to help remind us of that, not justifying anything. Not saying its OK to do it.

If we start scolding and starting to shake our fingers at people, then in the future, fewer will be willing to share such experiences, and the learning pipeline gets cut off. That's bad.

Just something to think about. And Bugsy - thanks for sharing! I've been flying for 45 years now, and you bet I have my own stories of being where I didn't want to be - and I've shared many of them.
 
I had an experience many years ago, flying in my local area with an overcast and some wispy lower clouds. I was on my way back to my home airport from a half hour tour of the local area and flying in the practice area about five miles north of the airport. Knowing there were mountains ahead, and seeing some wispy clouds ahead I had just started a turn when I flew into a wispy cloud hiding in the foreground (couldn't be distinguished from the background). After the usual !@#$%^ moment and searching in vain for the horizon and seeing the ground directly below once in a while, I pulled power, continued my turn and descended. Luckily, I flew out of the cloud shortly and continued back to my home airport and landed.

The OP mentioned the "surprise factor" and I can attest to that. I had an AI, DG and the rest of the six pack and handheld GPS but I think I only consulted the AI, and that not fully. When flying VFR I don't think you are aware of your heading as much as if you are already on the gauges. To execute the 180 degree turn you were taught during PPL training you have to know what heading you are on to start with.

It would be interesting to put a number on the "surprise factor", that is, how long it takes to recognize the situation, get on the gauges, make a plan and execute the plan successfully. From my experience 30 seconds seems about right.
 
The OP mentioned the "surprise factor" and I can attest to that. I had an AI, DG and the rest of the six pack and handheld GPS but I think I only consulted the AI, and that not fully. When flying VFR I don't think you are aware of your heading as much as if you are already on the gauges. To execute the 180 degree turn you were taught during PPL training you have to know what heading you are on to start with.

One of many reasons I always set the heading bug.
 
Hi Paul,

I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, but I have to say I was surprised by this tone. Yes, this is a learning situation; but scud running is highly dangerous. I think it warrants a review of what could have happened had it not worked out so well. One of those big consequences is killing someone else. I don't think this is preachy, more matter of fact.

Anyway, not to belabor this; but I don't think it makes sense to shut those of us down who were pointing out the consequences of the actions/decision making.

And to the other poster who commented that having an instrument rating doesn't doesn't absolve you of making good decisions -- ya, understood. We all need to take into account our limitations as well as those of the aircraft.

Thanks.
Antony

Sounds like he was referring to those "These responses are scary" replies. You know, from the judgmental crowd who are far superior to the rest of us and could never do anything like this...

"I don't think it makes sense to shut those of us down who were pointing out the consequences of the actions/decision making"

No it doesn't, constructive criticism is always welcome. But it makes even less sense to chastise those who tell us their mistakes so that we may learn from them.
 
We would all do well to realize that "scud running" is often a colloquialism in context. What many consider "scud running" to be in SoCal, would be a nice flying day in Alaska. I know people who have flown for a hundred miles at or below power line altitude, and I know others who think being trapped under a layer at 1500 AGL is uncomfortable.

Scud running is real, often its even legal, so lets not get too wrapped around the axle with a casual mention of the practice.
 
+1000

"These responses are scary" replies. You know, from the judgmental crowd who are far superior to the rest of us and could never do anything like this...
+1000. You got that right. As I mentioned up thread, I posted the story of my recent scud-running experience on another aviation forum and was blasted with virtue signalling responses from former pilots and one airline F.O. I was at 1,000' AGL, over an interstate in a sparsely-populated area, away from airports, with a thin layer above me that was only 500' thick; I could see sun and blue sky occasionally. I had 4 hrs. of fuel onboard. I had Synthetic Vision on my iPad to point out any obstructions. I had not one but two AIs. IOW, I was completely legal and had several "outs". I have video of that "scary" flight, but chose not to post it over there. I just don't need the grief. I think scud-running should be part of every pilots training; You really don't understand the dangers and options until you experience it first hand.
 
Last edited:
I think scud-running should be part of every pilots training; You really don't understand the dangers and options until you experience it first hand.

It can be done safely, given the right training and equipment. As evidence, I offer the story of Ed Long, generally accepted as the highest time pilot in the history of the world (about 65,000 hours).

Ed flew year round, mostly in a Super Cub, on a statewide power line patrol.
The controllers at Dannelly (MGM) gave him a special VFR when ducks were thumbing a ride. Admittedly he knew every post, pole, tower, pasture, and farm strip along his routes, as well as all the real airports, but he rarely ventured above 200 feet in the Cub, and considered 1000 and 3 to be a fine day.

One engine failure, no crashes. Gave me my first tailwheel dual, in a Great Lakes. In these parts, we all miss him.
 
Ed Long

It can be done safely, given the right training and equipment. As evidence, I offer the story of Ed Long, generally accepted as the highest time pilot in the history of the world (about 65,000 hours).

Ed flew year round, mostly in a Super Cub, on a statewide power line patrol.
The controllers at Dannelly (MGM) gave him a special VFR when ducks were thumbing a ride. Admittedly he knew every post, pole, tower, pasture, and farm strip along his routes, as well as all the real airports, but he rarely ventured above 200 feet in the Cub, and considered 1000 and 3 to be a fine day.

One engine failure, no crashes. Gave me my first tailwheel dual, in a Great Lakes. In these parts, we all miss him.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ed, I think in 1993. Up until that era when people started writing about Ed, Max Conrad was considered one of the highest time pilots with around 45000 hours.
I have always considered 1000/3 a fine day.
 
Data on CFIT

Happy Veterans Day, and I'm not offended by scolding, this got folks thinking and that's good.

Dan H. you asked about data regarding reaction time with "getting on the gauges" It varies so greatly in each situation that it’s hard to gain a conclusion. What I do have is experience reviewing many Air Force CFIT "Controlled Flight into Terrain" fatalities. The human factor causes tend to align into theses buckets. Discipline required to mitigate all.

OVER RELLIANCE ON VISUAL CUES:
This human factor effects not only the VFR pilot. A review of F16 AIB reports shows multiple pilots on NVGS using max stick deflection to "hunt for the horizon" as the aircraft is in a turning decent following recovery from unusual attitude resulting in CFIT. To Dan's question of time to "get on the gauges" In these F16 mishaps the pilots spent minutes and began above 10,000 ft before impact all the time capturing stick deflections that demonstrate a hunt for the horizon.

In my near miss, I spent about what seemed like 45 seconds searching for visual cues before pulling my brain back inside

DUCK UNDER
Have you flown an instrument approach to minimums and thought Ill give it 50 more feet to see if I break out?

INADEQUATE POWER MANAGEMENT
Climb required in mountainous terrain exceeds climb available. Just reviewed an MC130 mishap that combined the crew’s late application of max power with poor CRM and low ceiling.

VISUAL ILLUSION
Weather Obscured terrain, black hole illusion, false horizon from the street lights crossing in front of you at an angle while circling for an approach

UNRECOGNIZED SPATIAL DISORIENTATION
We mistakenly think of SDO as the leans, graveyard spiral, vertigo etc. The greatest SDO threat is subthreshold roll. The threshold for perception of roll is 2 degrees per second. That means a slow overbank in the weather/night of 40 degrees can occur in 21 seconds and won’t be noticed/felt/perceived.

My reaction to initiate a turn once I entered inadvertent IMC could have been the fatal decision because it was initiated at the same time I was looking out the side of the airplane for the ground.
 
Last edited:
In case nobody mentioned it, Col Gardetto is the former Deputy Chief of the USAF Safety Center?s Human Factors Division, and co-author of the Human Factors Investigation chapter of Air Force Instruction 91-204 ?Safety Investigations and Reports.? I?m proud of him for opening up on this whole issue, for all of our benefit, as well as his own. He certainly knows the subject area better than most of us.

And now that he has survived the human factor pitfall, he has become an even better and more experienced pilot.
 
I'm starting to se some posts here getting a bit "Scoldy", and I'd suggest that is counterproductive in a safety discussion. The OP clearly understands that he made a mistake (one that has been made by, oh.....just about EVERY pilot who has flown long enough to be called experienced...), and he's sharing the experience with the intent to let those who think they know it all and woudl never do anything dumb that yes, indeed, you can stumble into a place you didn't intend to be.

I think that's pretty obvious to most. Stumbling VFR into IFR conditions is bad for everyone. Don't do it. What the OP is going is to help remind us of that, not justifying anything. Not saying its OK to do it.

If we start scolding and starting to shake our fingers at people, then in the future, fewer will be willing to share such experiences, and the learning pipeline gets cut off. That's bad.

Just something to think about. And Bugsy - thanks for sharing! I've been flying for 45 years now, and you bet I have my own stories of being where I didn't want to be - and I've shared many of them.

I was not trying to be scoldy or question actions after going IMC. What scared me is that some posts suggest that prior to departure the conditions were either very marginal or illegal for IFR flight. With better avionics I see more pilots pushing limits. I read about a recent accident where a pilot died using a homemade approach on a IPad. The RV by its nature is not a very good aircraft for scud running. It's not a 60 knot cub. If we want to foster safe flying it's important to make others aware of what might be risky behavior. In some cases they may not even be aware of it. I have been on the receiving end of such talks and welcomed the input and tried to take it to heart. We all make mistakes.
 
Is there an NTSB report on this? I'd like to read it if so...

Go to https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx, enter the date range you want to search, and at the bottom of the page, type in ipad. Since 2014, there are 46 events in the database. There are some events too new to be in the database.

Or it's easier to remember ntsb.gov and in the Investigations tab, one menu item is Aviation Database. (I've spent entirely too much time reading NTSB reports...)
 
Go to https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx, enter the date range you want to search, and at the bottom of the page, type in ipad. Since 2014, there are 46 events in the database. There are some events too new to be in the database.

Or it's easier to remember ntsb.gov and in the Investigations tab, one menu item is Aviation Database. (I've spent entirely too much time reading NTSB reports...)

Yes, I know about that database. I was hoping you could provide a case number or something so we didn't have to spend hours going through the database searching for it...
 
I realize that it's been some time since this thread was active, but I just noticed it and wanted to contribute an old article of mine. The piece recounts two of the half-dozen or so emergencies I've experienced over the years, the first of which was a classic, new pilot VFR into IMC situation.

Competence & Confidence
 
Since this thread has been revived, I thought I would toss in a question...

Now that we have fancy EFIS displays that show not only attitude but terrain and mapping information superimposed on attitude. are there any lesses to be learned with respect to the time required to transition to instruments if those instruments are carrying more than basic blue up / brown down attitude information?

I'm not asking with a bias but rather would like to learn from the experiences of others such that I might use their experience to inform my EFIS configuration choices.

Thanks.

PS: I'm flying behind GRT glass so have the ability to display plain old PFD info, or to superimpose terrain, map and obstacle data. I won't say how my primary EFIS is currently configured as I really do hope this will be an opportunity for me to learn from others.
 
"Maintain Aircraft Control"

When transitioning to instruments, stick to the basics and work big to small. First/primary reference must become the attitude indicator...the basic blue up/brown down. Why? You have lost your ability to reference the horizon out front of your aircraft, so your instruments' attitude indication becomes vital for aircraft control (along with altimeter, airspeed, VSI, and other instruments that indicate your movement relative to the horizon).

Then once you've made sure your brain and senses are accurately in sync with the horizon (through artificial indications), fold in the rest of the information like map, etc.

Spatial dis/misorientation is the primary risk during this transition from VMC to IMC. "Maintain aircraft control" is job one.

Now, you asked how long this takes. It usually takes a few seconds, but it could be over a minute. Take as much time as necessary to successfully and accurately link your brain to the artificial horizon (but don't hit something), and BELIEVE your instruments.
 
BTW...

...Bugsy (the original poster) has successfully gained his IFR rating, just like he promised himself last year after the Springfield event.

CONGRATULATIONS, BUGSY!!
 
Sid - thanks for your comments.

What I was really looking for was whether pilots find it easier or harder, slower or faster, to get "on the instruments" when their EFIS is configured to show Synthetic Vision-like info, or whether transition ease/speed is better with just the plain "blue up, brown down" representation.
 
Sid - thanks for your comments.

What I was really looking for was whether pilots find it easier or harder, slower or faster, to get "on the instruments" when their EFIS is configured to show Synthetic Vision-like info, or whether transition ease/speed is better with just the plain "blue up, brown down" representation.

Got it. OK, I have my SkyView PFD set up with synthetic vision. It is not a cluttered presentation, so for me it really doesn't impact my transition to the artificial horizon and other PFD elements. If I could really clutter up the display, it may extend the transition time.
 
Thanks for your comments, Gents. I've been wondering about this for awhile since we've been getting EFIS systems capable of more and more information being displayed on top of the basic attitude information. It's always helpful to learn of others experiences.
 
I have a question. Pardon my ignorance, but I am a mere student pilot still, and Instrument rating will be next year, at the earliest.

I have heard that ordinary vacuum gyros can be upset in aerobatic flight. So it stands to reason that if you lost control after entering IMC that the instruments could be all jumbled depending on what type of attitude you were in. Right?

Do the ADAHRS get jumbled up to? Do they have gyros inside or do they use electronics to compute attitude?

Basically are they any more trustworthy than the traditional vacuum or electric gyros.
 
Sid - thanks for your comments.

What I was really looking for was whether pilots find it easier or harder, slower or faster, to get "on the instruments" when their EFIS is configured to show Synthetic Vision-like info, or whether transition ease/speed is better with just the plain "blue up, brown down" representation.

As an old basic 6 pack guy (IFR rating 1984), I routinely ignore the artificial terrain, etc. stuff when going on the gauges (GRT HX). So for me, the answer is "no difference". In fact, I have a GRT HS as a PFD, but if I fly right seat and swap the PFD-MFD, I notice no difference going on the gauges (the HS does not display terrain.) When IFR I also split the main PFD (HX) to show main EFIS data/HSI (even though most, but not all, the HSI data shows on the main EFIS screen too). It's just what I'm comfortable with. When VFR I change the HSI split screen to a moving map, to see ADSB traffic better relative to landmarks (it also does show on the HSI page, but with no landmarks).
 
I have a question. Pardon my ignorance, but I am a mere student pilot still, and Instrument rating will be next year, at the earliest.

I have heard that ordinary vacuum gyros can be upset in aerobatic flight. So it stands to reason that if you lost control after entering IMC that the instruments could be all jumbled depending on what type of attitude you were in. Right?

Do the ADAHRS get jumbled up to? Do they have gyros inside or do they use electronics to compute attitude?

Basically are they any more trustworthy than the traditional vacuum or electric gyros.

Modern EFIS units/ADAHRS do not have mechanical gyros. They have miniature accelerometers to measure accelerations in 3 dimensions. They use a computer to solve Newton's laws, to calculate the changes in attitude. The real trick is how to fix long term drift due to small errors in the accelerometers. Different manufacturers do this differently, and the actual methods used tend to be kept as trade secrets. e.g., some brands need airspeed data to reach a stable long-term solution. Others do not, using instead magnetometers that sense the earth's magnetic field, or possibly GPS data. Since I have a -10 I don't do aerobatics, but I believe most if not all EFIS units will not "tumble" under unusual attitudes.
If you experience an upset with conventional gyro instruments, there is a fair probability that the AI gyro has badly drifted because the vacuum pump failed, undetected. I always teach my students that an unusual attitude should be recovered from by using the Turn Coordinator, which is electric in almost all airplanes, and being a rate gyro will not tumble. You can use the altimeter, airspeed, and seat-of-the-pants g-loading to get the pitch correct.
 
Thank You Bob for that excellent explanation. I can honestly say I learned something new today. This was kind of timely anyway as we are doing "under the hood" training time for my PPL. I have been convinced that the IFR rating is important, if nothing else, to be practiced and proficient with instrument flying. It will be my nest endeavor.

I can say, without a doubt, I find it fun and challenging.

It's a whole bunch harder than I had anticipated. At least to be good at.:eek:
 
I had no idea

After reading through all these post I had no idea so many pilots in this forum do not have an instrument ticket. I was lucky and the US Army provided me with one. For the record I haven't filed IFR in years. Like some of the posters I have gone inadvertent IMC while trying to get from point A to point B. It was never planned but when it happened I was extremely comfortable turning back 180 degrees and finding VFR again. I am inside the aircraft quite a bit constantly referencing engine and flight instruments (military training habit). For the past 15 years I fly with a GRT EFIS so a transition to instruments is second nature.. I hope everyone on this forum takes the time to get some IFR training or at least a few hours of hood work each year so they can be safe in the event they wonder into IMC. Everyone should practice often enough to have confidence they are able to transition to the instruments and fly back out of the IMC they entered.


I am glad that so many of you shared your experience. I hope it motivates others to practice (simulate) egressing IMC safely and confidently should the need occur.
 
Sid - thanks for your comments.

What I was really looking for was whether pilots find it easier or harder, slower or faster, to get "on the instruments" when their EFIS is configured to show Synthetic Vision-like info, or whether transition ease/speed is better with just the plain "blue up, brown down" representation.

I have the GRT HXr and fly instrument flights somewhat regularly. I have my screen in split view and leave it that way when on the gauges as well. I, like many I suppose, need 30 seconds or so when entering IMC to regain comfort with the scan. During that time, I am fixated on the basic PFD elements and ignore the synthetic vision and maps. After that, I am comfortable using data on the map. In fact, I have incorporated the map into my IFR scan and find the track line superimposted on the course line to be very helpfull and it is my primary heading reference when following a course, especially in the early stage of an approach. With the GRT, this is true real time and you can see it move the instant the bank starts. Once on the final approach course, I leverage both the CDI as well as leveraging the vertical velocity vector and keeping it on the runway displayed on synthetic vision (before the runway is visible, I leverage the track indicator by keepting it aligned with the course bug on the PFD for the same effect). The velocity vector is much more responsive than the CDI and allows for much faster and better correction, especially with turbulence. You will see the vector move off the target long before noticing a change on the CDI. This only works with GPS and LOC based approaches, but I haven't flown a VOR approach since training and don't suspect I'll ever do another one. This may not work for the VFR into IMC discussed here, as there may not be an active course programmed.

I think it is wise to learn to use all of tools in the bag. I had a flight last week where I needed this skill. I took off in a 500 OVC. About 1-2 miles from my departure airport (uncontrolled), ATC warns me of traffic. The target was at my altititude and 3 miles away. ATC called him as a VFR target, yet we were in the soup. Surprisingly ATC gave me no avoidance vectors after informing them I was IMC. The aircraft was rapidly changing direction (guessing he got caught in IMC and was trying to get down or to my airport) and I started getting nervous. I finally took evasive measures to avoid the traffic (leveraging ADSB data on the map) and needed the map in my scan in order to effectively avoid the traffic. And yes ATC granted me a deviation to avoid the traffic. If I was not comfortable with a scan including the map, I risked focusing on it to the exclusion of the PFD at 800 AGL. This all happened about 15 seconds after entering IMC conditions and I was still trying to get comfortable being in IMC.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Human factors

I am a corporate jet pilot so I fly IFR for a living. I have been commuting to work (about an hour flight) for about 15 years in single engine planes, currently in my recently bought RV-10. I offer my opinion as just that, helpful advise.

1. Slow down. If you are concerned about deteriorating weather, you are likely to become task saturated very quickly. Our RV?s are very fast and we are used to tooling around at 200 mph. Slowing down reduces the pressure of time a little.

2. When the sun goes down, the price of poker goes up. If you are not totally comfortable flying solely by instrument reference, night cross country is folly. It is far to easy to stumble into IMC. We also are usually more tired and small tasks like finding something you dropped on the cockpit floor can be challenging. A night flight is far more challenging than a daytime trip and my personal minimums go way up.

3. Currency. Single pilot IFR is not allowed for most charter companies without a fully functioning autopilot. That is an FAA rule placed on professionals who are far more current than most of us. The workload of single pilot IFR can easily overwhelm anyone, especially at night. If you are not practicing a lot, you are at risk of getting in over your head.

4 Age. I am in my 60?s now and I have to factor the insidious creep of slower response times, quicker fatigue, and dulled perceptions. We all have to constantly evaluate our skill levels, I know mine are not improving and I try and reign in my youthful exuberance to match my diminishing abilities.

This thread has been a great chance for us all to re-evaluate how easily things can go bad. Thank you all for sharing your experiences, I learn from them.
 
Sid - thanks for your comments.

What I was really looking for was whether pilots find it easier or harder, slower or faster, to get "on the instruments" when their EFIS is configured to show Synthetic Vision-like info, or whether transition ease/speed is better with just the plain "blue up, brown down" representation.

I think in most training the mantra is to get on the instruments before going IMC. Of course this does not apply to accidental entry. There was a comment earlier about Night and IFR skills. I have accidentally gone IMC at night (VFR Flight following) due to 'skud' at altitude on a moonless starry night. All of a sudden, the stars and ground lights disappear. Disconcerting since it was not forcast but not dangerous with the rating. I was out of it before enough time to talk to the controller about getting a local clearance for an approach.

The old GRTs did not have synthetic vision but still showed runway position on a flat plane. I have a newer model now that has synthetic vision and I find little difference in the aquisition of data for flight.
However, I will make the comment that it took me a LONG time to get comfortable with the tape displays of AS, ALT and VS. My brain remains very hardwired for looking at needle position (not the number) on round gages during a scan. Even now, if there was a change to make the displays more analog, I would entertain it. I have steam for backup which has saved my bacon on at least one instance.

Take care.

Edit. +1 for Mconners post :)
 
Last edited:
Dan,
He?s an USAF expert on the subject, but even he wasn?t immune.

I suspect the urge to hunt for the ground (rather than look to the instruments) when blundering into IMC must be like the urge to turn back to the airport after an engine failure: very strong and very difficult to resist, even with training.

Similarly, several seconds of unproductive, "oh sh-t," wide-eyed frozen terror time should be factored into every scenario involving a surprise reduction in engine power right after takeoff. Ask me how I know. :)
 
I took off in a 500 OVC. About 1-2 miles from my departure airport (uncontrolled), ATC warns me of traffic. The target was at my altititude and 3 miles away. ATC called him as a VFR target, yet we were in the soup. Surprisingly ATC gave me no avoidance vectors after informing them I was IMC.

Larry

I suspect you were below ATC?s minimum vectoring altitude; they were powerless to help you unless you used the ?E? word.
I once had something similar, but was on an ILS approach. When I reported I was IMC, ATC immediately cancelled my approach clearance and called for an immediate climbing turn. On the second approach, I broke out right at the reported altitude of the previous traffic. To this day, I believe ATC saved me from a near-miss, or worse. It always amazes me how many vfr pilots do not understand why there are cloud clearance rules in controlled airspace. (Or, for that matter, ifr pilots who do not think about the risk with approaches into uncontrolled airspace).
 
Bob makes a good point. Approaches into uncontrolled airspace...while ATC might help, your basically on your own!
 
I suspect you were below ATC’s minimum vectoring altitude; they were powerless to help you unless you used the ‘E’ word.
I once had something similar, but was on an ILS approach. When I reported I was IMC, ATC immediately cancelled my approach clearance and called for an immediate climbing turn. On the second approach, I broke out right at the reported altitude of the previous traffic. To this day, I believe ATC saved me from a near-miss, or worse. It always amazes me how many vfr pilots do not understand why there are cloud clearance rules in controlled airspace. (Or, for that matter, ifr pilots who do not think about the risk with approaches into uncontrolled airspace).

You're right. I hadn't thought about it at the time, But I and the supposed VFR traffic were about 1500 MSL and the MVA in chicago approach airspace is 2500. There really wasn't much the controller could do as the track behavior of the target was so erratic. I have received these type of instructions to avoid traffic in the past and I ended up doing probably exactly what he would have called, which was to accelerate the climb (I was well below my clearance altitude in a climb) and turn in the direction opposite of the bearing to the target. It was so liberating to have the radar data in the plane so that I could control my destiny. I just LOVE having ADS-b data.

Larry
 
Last edited:
It always amazes me how many vfr pilots do not understand why there are cloud clearance rules in controlled airspace.

This is a flaw in the FAA testing and oversight, in my opinion. I did not understand the reason for cloud clearance until long after getting my PPL. I assumed it was a buffer they built in to keep me from going into the clouds. The reasoning for the clearance rule is not taught and I believe the FAA is to blame for not testing on this. If a question related to the reason for the cloud clearance regs were on the test, the subject would be covered in every text related to the PPL. The FAA should know better, as it is unlikely any student pilot would understand the reason for it, let alone be concerned about a plane magically appearing before them from a cloud. It is drilled into them to avoid the clouds. It's hard to imagine how they could comprehend the complexities of IFR flight and how that merges with VFR flight.

I feel the FAA has an obligation to teach the concept of IFR, given that VFR pilots need to peacefully co-exist with IFR traffic in certain convergence areas. I feel that if pilots understood that a plane could be descending through that cloud base in front of them and come right through their windshield that they wouldn't fly 10 feet below the cloud deck.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Great conversation everyone. Safety is obviously important and I applaud everyone participating so more can think long and hard when their own "get home itis"starts getting louder. We've all been there. I have many memories of winding up in Wx where I wish I had deiced differently before taking off. Ice, IFR, T-storms, stuck on top, excessive cross winds etc...

I have only been an RV owner for a couple of months, but have had a few Initial Instrument customers in RVs over the past couple years. Here are my thoughts.

RVs are really neat. They do a lot very well. But their responsiveness and speed that we all love also makes them though for hard single pilot IFR without an auto pilot.

I went up earlier today with a friend out of our Class G airport under the DFW bravo. The wx was 1,500. We filed and went on our way to go practice some approaches so my friend would be current and proficient before OSH.

We could have filed and tried to pic up the clearance airborne but as many have read and experienced, that plan does not always go off smoothly.

Yes getting a clearance on the ground takes an extra minute on the phone but boy what a difference it makes when you take off, exhale, manage your engine, and get the autopilot on.

It becomes an even cadenced symphony instead of rush followed by a busy controller and you just dropped your pin while trying to program your GPS and "hey was that cub we just flew by?". For me that is way too much work.

I'll be getting an autopilot in my personal RV soon for the pure safety when the wx falls to marginal VFR and below.

As for our friends who have not yet received their IFR ticket, I would at the very least practice more under the hood stuff and use their automation (especially their auto pilot). I try to remember that we can all have 10,000 hours or 1 hour 10,000 times. We should all practice for fun and practice for proficiency. We might need that skill some trip.

If any of us get in trouble, we should get the auto pilot on, select a heading toward known better wx and pic an altitude above near obstructions. This minimal process should increase our chance of a favorable outcome exceptionally.

Lastly personal minimums. I have mine and I encourage every BFR customer to reaffirm their own. No autopilot yet (like myself)? Different personal minimums.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top