* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Directory * Topsites *Weather *Enter Chat * Media Kit
It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 7:10 am



All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is chatting

Who is chatting
Enter Chat




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 3:17 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:36 am
Posts: 924
That's my point, right there in the title. The number of private aircraft flying for recreational purposes that kill unwitting passengers out for a nice Sunday afternoon has become unacceptable. It's the greatest risk to life in Canadian aviation these days. I don't want to be the guy saying don't go fly for pie because VFR flying below the MOCAs isn't safe, because it is, and it's a ton of fun and it's one of the things I absolutely love about flying. But this has become .. just commonplace, reading about people, hearing from friends about their friend who went up the valley one day and it didn't work out. You hear about an accident and the first question you ask is, was it a commercial operation? Because if it wasn't an airline you already know most of what happened, someone got cornered and ran out of options because they missed that AIRMET, or they didn't check the forecast for Invermere or it was just bad data and the guy had used up his available skills to exit this situation.

If all pilots were,
a) able to at least call centre and say, "hey I'm turned around give me a hand?" without fear of violation and,
b) skilled enough to just find out the MOCA to fly to an available ILS or RNAV and shoot it to minimums,

There would be a lot fewer Canadians crying over coffins. It's true, you all know it's true, and I would just like to stop reading about these events in the paper.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 4:21 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:16 am
Posts: 1021
dont stop at an ifr rating! full atpls for all cessna owners!! no pax until 2000 hrs night pic and no night pic flying until you have 2000 hrs day pic.

the problem isnt lacking the ability to shoot an ils, its the 'go' decision. you wanna talk about crying over coffins, giving 100 hrs guys partial ifr ratings and saying 'here this will save your ass' is a surefire way to get results.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 5:59 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:52 pm
Posts: 2056
Location: CYVR
square, I am sorry but I must disagree with you on so many levels.

First lets start with the idea of the IFR ratings. Spam cam singles should not be flown IFR in the mountains. Period. How much time have you spend below the peaks flying valleys? In a light single like you suggest you can easily get boxed in and not be able to out climb the terrain and have no where to turn. You are dead when you made the choice to fly up the blind valley without knowing where you where going. No IFR rating, no amount of experience is ever going to save you at that point. You have used up all your outs. What you need to do is respect what you are about to embark on. Have a route picked out, with several options if possible. Set your self realistic goals. If I get to this intersection and can see up to the next valley with no cloud below X altitude I continue and so forth as your flight progresses. Know where you can turn around and don't be afraid to. Always leave your self one more out. Time spent planning is time well spent. I know when I was getting my PPL I would spend 2 or 3 hours several days before just mapping a route and researching then another few hours on the day off getting prepped for a flight. Five to six hours of prep for an hour or so in the air. There is no substitute for for planning.

As for
Quote:
a) able to at least call centre and say, "hey I'm turned around give me a hand?" without fear of violation and,


Well if you are in the mountains it is very very slim chance you are on radar and also very unlikely to raise center at the typical light single mountain crossing altitudes.

Quote:
b) skilled enough to just find out the MOCA to fly to an available ILS or RNAV and shoot it to minimums,

The most dangerous pilot in the world is one with a basic IFR rating and no support. That will lead to a whole stack of coffins as you put it.

Plan to fly VFR, stay VFR and if it starts getting below your personal pre-set minimums use your pre-planned escape route and stay VFR that is what will keep people alive.

If it is your own machine, don't skimp on maintenance, is saving a couple hundred bucks really worth your life in the mountains.

With all that said, I don't know if I would feel safe in a single over the mountains any more after doing it in reliable pressurized twin turbo prop with significant amount of excess power. Even in that machine there are times when the number of outs I have left is not nearly as long as I would like it to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 6:11 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:36 am
Posts: 924
200, your points are all correct. The effects of mountain wave and the peaks are treacherous. Flying up a valley below the peaks in mountainous terrain that you're unfamiliar with is of course idiotic and if you have a headwind, quite possibly deadly. That's a great point. I'm not saying instrument skills are all you need, I'm saying it's a deficiency that PPLs need, it's a deficiency that's caused a lot of accidents. Including numerous trips up the hills, but theyve been all over the world in mountainous and non-mountainous terrain, remember JFK Jr? What you're saying is that knowledge and preperation are essential, and you are 100% right. Thank you. I'm saying that spending another 20 hrs on learning IFR maneouvering is worthwhile and basically essential for escaping weather emergencies that are catching people all over the country. Pilots need to reach further. Guys are making approaches onto roads and winding up at the bottom of ravines when they're fully equipped to fly to full-service airports. Fully equipped. It's not the first time or the second time, this is somewhere safety can be improved and I don't agree it's a flimsy argument.

This is a Canadian hobby that has more fatalities than every part 7 operator combined. Shouldn't a solution or at least a mitigating procedure be found?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 10:43 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 3973
Location: Over Macho Grande
Quote:
This is a Canadian hobby that has more fatalities than every part 7 operator combined.


I'm confused - are you now referring to sex, recreational pharmaceuticals or water sports?!

Quote:
The most dangerous pilot in the world is one with a basic IFR rating


Interesting. About 4 months ago, a pilot from a nearby airport crashed and killed himself and his passenger in a Cessna Cardinal, attempting to fly a vectored Ottawa ILS 07 on a challenging night. I am still waiting for the TSB report, which admittedly are pretty disappointing sometimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 3:51 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:22 pm
Posts: 54
And don't post it on youtube

http://youtu.be/MkHr3f748BE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFrk5epVsE8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_PaziSArLY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEf3Ah0bb5E


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am
Posts: 3320
Location: Group W bench
Quote:
I'm not saying instrument skills are all you need, I'm saying it's a deficiency that PPLs need, it's a deficiency that's caused a lot of accidents.


Once upon a time, we let people have private licenses with zero instrument training. Incidentally there are still a lot of people out there flying who don't even have that five hours of time that is now required under the current PPL licnesing standard. The five hours came about after it was determined that PPL holders just can't stay out of clouds. The above video links would seem to provide ample evidence of this. This is really where the deficiency in skill or rather judgement exists. Its like the old saying, superior judgement keeps you from having to put to the test superior skill. While as a pilot I do have mad instrument flying skillz, for the most part I use them at my choosing rather than at forced necessity. Its really not that hard to stay out of clouds. Sometimes of course that means electing not to fly, which for some reason is a really hard choice not to make for some pilots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 6:02 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:17 am
Posts: 3071
Location: West Coast
I have a trained a few PPL IR's over the years. My approach is

1) We start with clear hood Attitudes and Movements. I have yet to meet a PPL that could fly clear hood to IF standards. They all have gotten sloppy, particularly with trimming the aircraft. After the clear hood basic manoevering is sorted out we then spend hours and hours of (for me) soul destroying, extremely tedious driving around under the hood working on accurate aircraft control. Only when the student can fly the airplane accurately under the hood do we start the actual IF procedures.

2) My students get actual cloud time before the flight test. For this reason I discourage IFR training in the summer. The bottom line is I will not recommend any PPL for a flight test until I they have demonstrated that they can safely fly in cloud and have flown at least one for real low approach.

3) After they have passed the Bullshit TC exam I teach them the practical weather knowledge and flight planning smarts that they need to fly real world IFR. Central to this is an understanding of what is making the weather and what it means to the conduct of the flight, good and bad.

4) Use of the GPS is incorporated into all the IF procedures training as I believe its use makes IF flying safer. This is ideally done with a fitted certified unit but if not then we use a handheld. If they don't have one then I won't start the training until they do. BTW we never navigate solely with the ADF. It will always be backed up by the GPS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 6:14 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 5612
Location: The Misty Mountains...
You took the words right out of my mouth SSU; and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

There is only one light aircraft accident that happened in my neck of the woods recently that occurred on a day I considered safe for VFR bug smashing, and it was a catastrophic engine failure and forced landing into a heavily wooded area.

An IFR rating for a pilot who doesn't have the right aircraft for the area he flies to keep it current is just a bit of cushion to get you out of a situation you should have never got yourself into in the first place. Same with power, same with STOL kits and bush wheels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 5:03 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:36 am
Posts: 924
iflyforpie wrote:
An IFR rating for a pilot who doesn't have the right aircraft for the area he flies to keep it current is just a bit of cushion to get you out of a situation you should have never got yourself into in the first place. Same with power, same with STOL kits and bush wheels.


That's true and nobody's wrong in saying they took their buddy out for a burger and it was a good bit of fun because of course they've passed their licences, maintain their aircraft to a really good standard and try to make good decisions. That's a good time! Hell it's a golf shot. But in the US don't you need an IR to get a CPL? It's just good practice I think, but I don't know I just got frustrated with hearing so many stories about this in the past few weeks is all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 9:04 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 550
90% of the bug smashers are not able to navigate in IMC so what would be the point of an IFR rating? The idea is to stay out of cloud unless you have filed IFR. You can't legislate stupidity away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:45 am 
Online
Rank 10
Rank 10
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 2633
Location: The Sandbox
I am not certain whether you are advocating that all Commercial pilots be also instrument rated, so that there are no commercial operations with guys who are qualified for VFR flying only. This is a US certification standard-- it is possible to get a US Commercial Airplane Certificate but you would be restricted to flying within 25 miles of the departure airport in for-hire operations.

I also would support the idea that more Private Pilots get instrument ratings. Unfortunately, the current renewal requirements for the Instrument Rating in Canada are not very economical for recreational flyers.

Whatever happened to the no-expiry Instrument Rating that was on discussion here on AvCanada a few years ago?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:51 am 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 8:47 am
Posts: 2
Message deleted - spam


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:56 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:00 pm
Posts: 871
Location: South-East Asia
I'm totally against making an IFR part of a commercial licence. Most of the seaplane operators have no use for it. What's the point? We rarely get high enough to get into controlled airspace. The whole idea is to make going into clouds a bad and scary idea. Having an IFR will make us confident when we should really be parked on a strange lake "waiting it out". We fly VFR. The is no ATC pretty much ever in many locations. We are not like the USA (Alaska perhaps) where runways and towers and airspace restrictions abound. I flew many years in 100% uncontrolled airspace without ever talking to ATC or FSS and never had an IFR or a problem. I've probably moved over 60,000 people successfully in the 21,000 plus flights I've done.

If you want to kill off aviation, just ad more expensive requirements. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 2:07 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 3973
Location: Over Macho Grande
Quote:
Whatever happened to the no-expiry Instrument Rating that was on discussion here on AvCanada a few years ago?


That was a bait-and-switch.

TC will never go to the FAA way of allowing any certified flight instructor to renew a private pilot's instrument rating during his BFR, which is required for even VFR flight every 2 years.

I hold an ATPL with a current group 1 IFR and have been an instructor for 20 years and teaching the instrument rating for 15 years, and TC tells me that I am not eligible and never will be eligible to become an examiner to renew instrument ratings.

It's a different world down south, I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:23 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:30 am
Posts: 907
Colonel Sanders wrote:
I hold an ATPL with a current group 1 IFR and have been an instructor for 20 years and teaching the instrument rating for 15 years, and TC tells me that I am not eligible and never will be eligible to become an examiner to renew instrument ratings.


I don't understand this? There are lots of PEs (Pilot Examiners) around that do IFR flight tests, both initial and renewals. Why would you be excluded?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:31 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:09 am
Posts: 3133
Quote:
The five hours came about after it was determined that PPL holders just can't stay out of clouds. The above video links would seem to provide ample evidence of this


I understood the five hours was included, as OTT was being introduced in Canada at the time, and despite the best intentions, sometimes a pilot might get caught on top and have to descend...Maybe I am wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:48 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am
Posts: 3320
Location: Group W bench
5x5 wrote:
Colonel Sanders wrote:
I hold an ATPL with a current group 1 IFR and have been an instructor for 20 years and teaching the instrument rating for 15 years, and TC tells me that I am not eligible and never will be eligible to become an examiner to renew instrument ratings.


I don't understand this? There are lots of PEs (Pilot Examiners) around that do IFR flight tests, both initial and renewals. Why would you be excluded?


While there are many PE's out there, there are not enough to meet the demand. TC is for some reason reluctant to or unable (or probably a combo of both) to train new PEs to fill the demand. They also have a strange system in place to determine the need for new ones or who amongst the qualified pilots out there is next in line to be trained. Ditching the requirement for IFR renewals was tabled with the knowledge in mind that they are going to have a shortage of PEs in the near future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:57 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am
Posts: 3320
Location: Group W bench
trey kule wrote:
Quote:
The five hours came about after it was determined that PPL holders just can't stay out of clouds. The above video links would seem to provide ample evidence of this


I understood the five hours was included, as OTT was being introduced in Canada at the time, and despite the best intentions, sometimes a pilot might get caught on top and have to descend...Maybe I am wrong.


The VFR OTT rating is a separate issue. Holding an unrated PPL has never allowed for OTT flight. FWIW the 5 hours of instrument training is what is often absent from foreign licenses that seek to have a TC license issued and is often the sticking point. When the five hours was introduced, the numbers of PPL holders was starting to increase at a dramatic rate, not to mention an increase of the numbers of aircraft of the performance with essentially the ability to fly longer ranges - and consequently tempt the pilot to push on into worse weather. The numbers of accidents attributable to spatial disorientation from entering clouds increased substantially over a time period. This at least was the story from an old TC person whom has now since retired.

So as above, since no matter how much they're told, PPL holders will enter cloud, it was felt to reduce the accident rate that it was needed to equip them with the training to at least give them a chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:00 am 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:57 am
Posts: 36
IR is not the critical factor here... It's a coupling of PDM, money and arrogance.

I propose a dialogue:
A/C (first pilot): 'Ground, Diamond 20 GABC on the ramp, VFR local northwest 6,500'

Controller: 'Diamond GABC, ground, pilot reported continuous moderate to severe turbulence from the surface to 6500ft, and we're showing multiple lightning strikes in the area, CBs forecast between now and 4 hours from now...'

*silence*

A/C (second pilot): ABC we check the remarks, we'll go take a look and out of curiosity, what was the a/c type reporting that turbulence?'

What I got out of what I heard was a controller painting a picture and a set of pilots (likely a student and instructor) pressing on to go, without regard for the facts. 'we'll go take a look...'. What a blatantly STUPID response, and as if there is anything more nimble and delicate than a DA20 on the field... The fact that an instructor built this scenario for an impressionable pilot is disgusting and while a bajillion people will say: 'oh I'd never do that...' well that's fine, but it happens all of the time, even when I was training.

Unfortunately though, for Darwin's sake, we'll always have planes going down faster than Bonanza's full of doctors, so long as money trumps brains. All we can do is our very best for ourselves and impress upon our pilot friends how dumb they are when they choose to play odds rather than the brains and memory of those before them. If I'm not sure I should go, I have a beer and think about it some more... An instrument rating is permission to go when you should have chosen more wisely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:40 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 3973
Location: Over Macho Grande
Quote:
When the five hours was introduced, the numbers of PPL holders was starting to increase at a dramatic rate, not to mention an increase of the numbers of aircraft of the performance with essentially the ability to fly longer ranges - and consequently tempt the pilot to push on into worse weather. The numbers of accidents attributable to spatial disorientation from entering clouds increased substantially over a time period. This at least was the story from an old TC person whom has now since retired.


What a load of self-serving bureaucratic crap he served you.

I remember perfectly clearly when the 5 hr hood requirement came in, during the 1980's. It was a typical knee-jerk reaction to an embarrassing incident.

There was an accident when a priest dug a hole in the ice, on a day when Transport forecasted clear and visibility unlimited, and he flew into cloud. Since Transport's forecast couldn't possibly have been wrong, the problem was clearly with all the private pilots, which they fixed with the addition of 5 hrs of hood time to the PPL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 am 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:23 pm
Posts: 210
Although it'd be nice if every PPL could have competent IFR skills (and an aircraft capable enough) it's just not realistic. Even if they had another 20 hours of IFR, that would be just enough for them to get them selves even further into trouble and have even less outs. I'd venture to say that a PPL with very beginner IFR abilities is more dangerous than a plain old VFR guy (who has the common sense to know he can't fly in IMC).

Although I believe accident rates have fallen over the years, the OP's point is valid - too many guys still give themselves Darwin awards.

But what is the REAL root cause? Is it lack of IFR skills (which technically you don't even need at that level) or.... is it terrible decision making? I'd rather have PPL's spend 2 hours on decision making than 20 hours on IFR procedures. An IFR rating and poor decision making will still get you killed - perhaps even faster. IFR skills would be a bandaid solution when the real problem is how to think through situations and make prudent judgments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am
Posts: 3320
Location: Group W bench
Colonel Sanders wrote:
Quote:
When the five hours was introduced, the numbers of PPL holders was starting to increase at a dramatic rate, not to mention an increase of the numbers of aircraft of the performance with essentially the ability to fly longer ranges - and consequently tempt the pilot to push on into worse weather. The numbers of accidents attributable to spatial disorientation from entering clouds increased substantially over a time period. This at least was the story from an old TC person whom has now since retired.


What a load of self-serving bureaucratic crap he served you.

I remember perfectly clearly when the 5 hr hood requirement came in, during the 1980's. It was a typical knee-jerk reaction to an embarrassing incident.

There was an accident when a priest dug a hole in the ice, on a day when Transport forecasted clear and visibility unlimited, and he flew into cloud. Since Transport's forecast couldn't possibly have been wrong, the problem was clearly with all the private pilots, which they fixed with the addition of 5 hrs of hood time to the PPL.


I didn't say I believed his explanation or agreed with how they have band-aid "fixed" the problem. They were right, however, that the problem does exist with pilots in that they can't stay out of clouds. I've been renting out airplanes for a while now and its a frequent fight. Guys frequently insist on flying into terrible crap - usually with some desperate need story. I smash their dreams and say no, inconvinience them terribly, but probably also stave off their appointment with the grimm reaper. I particularly remember an arguement with a renter who insisted it was good to go, while I was trying to clean our walkway out in half mile in blowing snow with a cieling around 400 AGL. I know at least 5 pilots who have declared emergencies after getting stuck above a cloud layer doing "VFR OTT" where there was no indication it was going to be anywhere near VFR at the destination (two pilots of which didn't even have the rating). That rating is somewhat of a peeve of mine since many pilots believe its "IFR light" rather than the limited usefulness that it actually entails. They have unfortunately yet to find a cure for gethomeitis and its variant getthereitis.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 


All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akoch, Bing [Bot], Full Ins, LOCBC, Panama Jack and 66 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

 
For questions/comments please send them to
webmaster@avcanada.ca


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this  forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as  quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a  topic or post is inappropriate email us at support@avcanada.ca .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that  all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and  not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these  people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site.   

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
  When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal  behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.