Emergency declared in circuit due to IMC

[DanWEC]

Date: 2018-06-18
Narrative: An Ottawa Aviation Services Cessna 172M (C-GBRO) on a flight from Ottawa/MacDonald-Cartier Int'l, ON (CYOW) and landing at Ottawa/MacDonald-Cartier Int'l, ON (CYOW) departed Runway 04 for circuits. Shortly after turning downwind, the pilot declared an emergency and stated that it had entered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The weather at the airport at the time was visual meteorological conditions (VMC), but there were isolated showers North of the airport. The aircraft was able to re-establish VMC and landed safely at 1556Z. No impact on operations.

Thoughts? Not here to roast the pilot, but it is the first time I've heard of this happening.

[digits_]

Better that than keeping quiet and hitting someone else or spiraling it into the ground. Even just tower trying to calm him down, or giving him vectors, might have a calming effect on a panicking pilot.

You can't train everything before you send the students solo. Staying out of the clouds is a pretty big item to stress during training. If he then enters the clouds inadvertently, I can see how he might think it warrants an emergency. It might seem silly to the average CPL holder, but it could have ended very badly.

[DanWEC]

True. Maybe overkill, and I'm sure there'll be plenty of eye rolls about it but ultimately declaring an emergency is there to help save you when in danger. I think everyone's a little freaked the first time they inadvertently enter IMC alone.
I'm wondering what led to it.

[C-GGGQ]

It's something like 11 seconds on average a vfr only trained pilot has between entering imc and complete loss of SA/ upside down and backwards according to old training material. Honestly at least he realized he was out of his depth and not too proud to ask for help. Could it have been a small patch of cloud he was clear of an instant after declaring the emergency. Maybe (probably) but what student hasn't panicked at least once. Everyone is safe and everyone has a new story to laugh over. Pilot in question included I'm sure.

[telex]

178 seconds.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviati ... -live.html

[455tt]

Yes I support the PIC 100%. The declaration of an emergency is the call of the PIC under their unique circumstances and it's always best to seek immediate help if considered necessary in the interests of safety rather than struggling on in stubborn silence. This pilot has gotten the message he/she was trained for.

[Lightchop]

Thoughts? Not here to roast the pilot, but it is the first time I've heard of this happening.

Inadvertent VMC to IMC is pretty common. Especially if it was light rain with good visibility and then the intensity increased. At the end of the day the pilot landed safely, and hopefully learned from their mistake.

[CL-Skadoo!]

100% with the PIC. If immediate assistance was required in this pilot's view, then the emergency declaration was the correct thing to do. Many student pilots get themselves into situations where a simple click of the mic can offload a bunch stress in a hurry. I probably would have tried to silently save my pride and dig myself out of my mess on my own. Not sure how that would have gone for 16 year old me as a student pilot. My only question would be, why would the pilot have been signed out with no IMC training unless complete VMC was expected at all times?

[photofly]

The report doesn’t say he or she had no IMC training.

[pelmet]

A look at the airport chart shows that while on downwind for 04, you are headed for final approach for 07. This quickly informed ATC to ensure no aircraft were on final in a potential collision scenario with the guy on downwind who might be extending his pattern.

No doubt there were lessons to be learned for the pilot that we can't analyze because we can't see what it was like in terms of whether it was a good idea to depart or turn in certain directions. I have posted previously about unecessary declarations of emergency but this declaration may have been useful for reasons other than it actually being useful to this pilot and such a situation can be considered an emergency for some pilots depending on a variety of factors such as pilot experience, aircraft equipment, etc.


As an aside, I do notice that conditions in some areas seem to be considered VFR with the ceiling at 1000 feet(among other variables). But when is it really legal to be flying circuits when considering cloud clearance and obstacle clearance? Not quite so straight forward. Even a 1500 foot ceiling may not be legal when flying over the city.

[photofly]

The 1000' above the nearest obstacle within 2000' rule does not apply during "takeoff, approach and landing" and is not applicable to circuits. Circuits are generally acceptable anything down to 500agl if in a control zone, maybe lower.

Several PSTAR exam questions reinforce the point that circuits flown at no point higher than 500 agl are acceptable to Transport Canada, as long as you remain 500' below the cloud base. Or request special VFR.

[pelmet]

The 1000' above the nearest obstacle within 2000' rule does not apply during "takeoff, approach and landing" and is not applicable to circuits. Circuits are generally acceptable anything down to 500agl if in a control zone, maybe lower.

Several PSTAR exam questions reinforce the point that circuits flown at no point higher than 500 agl are acceptable to Transport Canada, as long as you remain 500' below the cloud base. Or request special VFR.

That is interesting. I would like to see the exact questions and answers on that one(if somehow available). I know you pretty much answered it, but would one be considered legal to be doing 500 foot circuits in airports located in urban areas?

Thanks.

[lownslow]

would one be considered legal to be doing 500 foot circuits in airports located in urban areas?

Legal? Yes. Good neighbour? Not so much.

[co-joe]

This is called putting safety first. Ahead of pride, ahead of everything. I would never fault someone for putting safety first.

[linecrew]

The report doesn't state if this was a licenced pilot or a student pilot that had recently soloed. That could make a difference as well since they would only have a relatively low number of hours and experience.

[photofly]

The 1000' above the nearest obstacle within 2000' rule does not apply during "takeoff, approach and landing" and is not applicable to circuits. Circuits are generally acceptable anything down to 500agl if in a control zone, maybe lower.

Several PSTAR exam questions reinforce the point that circuits flown at no point higher than 500 agl are acceptable to Transport Canada, as long as you remain 500' below the cloud base. Or request special VFR.

That is interesting. I would like to see the exact questions and answers on that one(if somehow available). I know you pretty much answered it, but would one be considered legal to be doing 500 foot circuits in airports located in urban areas?

Thanks.

Questions 6.08, 6.09 and 6.10.

Airports in urban areas must be certificated, and not registered (aerodromes). TC assesses and approves operations at certificated airports. If TC judges extra restrictions on circuits at specific airports are required, they can impose them, through CAR 602.96(3)(d) by specifying them in the CFS.

Otherwise, fill your boots.

[photofly]

duplicate

[dpm]

Glad to see that the comments have been supportive. I trained at that same airport in 2002, and know the circuit well. Aside from the pilot's concern about his own safety, I agree that a pilot, within a mile of one of Canada's busier airports, who finds himself suddenly in a situation where he isn't confident that he can maintain assigned heading and altitude, is right to speak up about it ASAP.

D

[Schooner69A]

"Legal? Yes. Good neighbour? Not so much."

I would think that you'd be doing a student a disservice if said student was not shown low level circuits at some point in their training. A lower-than-normal circuit altitude usually means lower ceiling than normal (obviously) and maybe more importantly, a reduced visibility. A "Special VFR" day would be perfect...

[digits_]

"Legal? Yes. Good neighbour? Not so much."

I would think that you'd be doing a student a disservice if said student was not shown low level circuits at some point in their training. A lower-than-normal circuit altitude usually means lower ceiling than normal (obviously) and maybe more importantly, a reduced visibility. A "Special VFR" day would be perfect...

You'd also do them a disservice by not practicing emergency/simulated engine failure landings, that doesn't mean you have to do that 20ft above someone's home.