Coroners Court Vic. Barwon Heads -
Poor old Coroner; what a tangle. Recommendation #2 caught my attention.
Recommendation 2 – that CASA increase IFR training and recency requirements for PPL candidates and holders, for the purpose of, but not necessarily limited to, further education for candidates on the fatal dangers of inadvertent entry into IMC.
Aye, but: is that a 'real' solution? The CASA response below defines the perennial problem, one which has never, globally, ever really been 'solved';.
13. To the extent that the recommendation is targeted at CASA increasing IFR training and recency requirements, CASA notes that IFR training, by its nature, is designed to teach the skills necessary for pilots to safely fly by reference to instruments only. It does not form part of the general PPL syllabus of training as it is an additional skill and separate rating for flying operations conducted under the IFR.:-*CASA considers that the training presently provided to PPL pilots around the need to ensure they stay in VFR conditions is adequate and that more specific IFR training is only necessary for pilots who wish to operate under the IFR.*
That last sentence presents a clear, cut and dried stand point, which, in essence, is bang on the money; no argument. However; VFR pilots pushing on into Instrument conditions continues, world wide, to be a big number on the butchers bill. A solution is required and IMO it is not CASA's, FAA, CAA or any other 'authorities' job to stop the body count. Perspective is needed from the pilot body; that (IMO) is where the solution lays.
Both question and problem for the VFR pilot lays within the ever asked question - 'go' or; not go? - that is the question; ain't it?
“Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,etc...
Several ways to go toward a 'solution' which does not involve 'complex' regulation or outrageous costs. But 'brass tacks' first: if you were scheduled for heart surgery and your plumber turned up to do the job; or, if a power line fell across the garage roof, would you get a ladder from the shed, climb up and repair the break? What if there was a gas leak at home; would you try to fix it with a blow torch? Of course not; like fire fighting or Air Traffic control at Mascot - these are tasks which require dedicated training and a proven skill set. So why would anyone persist in flying into weather condition for which they neither have the training, demonstrated skills and experience to do the bloody job. Its balmy, statistically proven to be so and dangerous. 'Managing a flight, in real IFR weather is governed by some rules which are an unbreakable tenet for survival; Lowest safe altitude; minima; ice management; fuel management; diversion; and the ability to draw the line; thus far and no further will I go.
The basic ability to execute a Rate 1 turn; on the clocks should be and was taught from the very first flying lesson; (well back in my day it was). Turn crosswind - set the turn angle by visual reference; then confirm - 80 IAS = 8+7 :: a Rate 1@15° angle of bank, ball in the middle - good job ; habit formed from first circuit. Basic escape from the insidious Bollocks of 'inadvertent'. There is NO inadvertent involved - none whatsoever.
One could lay some 'blame' at the feet of the BoM; they have a wide margin for error on a forecast. This works both ways; - for and against an outcome. It is quite possible to have to battle your way down to 'minima' and just 'squeak' in - legal on a reasonable forecast; and be equally worried along the journey about a forecast only to find an easy approach in the mildest of conditions. Such is the inexact science of computer generated models. BUT, that is what you have to work with. So then; what must we teach our VFR pilots?
Only my considered opinion and an insignificant one at best but; try I must.
Item 1 : ensure, from the beginning of 'training' that all in flight manoeuvres are initially set up by visual reference and confirmed by flight instruments; make it a life long habit, deeply entrenched.
Item 2 : Encourage 'students' to not just 'pass' the Met exam. Hell's bells' the BoM are only making educated 'guesses' and working with 'trend' models to forecast the weather and they all hold university degrees in the subject (well, mostly). Pilots (no matter the stamp) must; and I do stress 'must' be able to evaluate a 'forecast' and formulate a plan of action based on the worst case; particularly with regard to icing, turbulence and the effects of both wind and temperature on the terrain and flight path. Rule 1 - always - always - always have the 'back door' wide open. If trumps turn to crap - then at least; at the critical juncture; there is a viable, pre formulated 'escape' route (plan of action - just in case) available from the 'sticking points' noted along the flight path.
Item 3 : While I am a great believer in and frequent 'user' of Auto pilot and GPS systems; I am not certain that an 'early' dependency on such luxury items is a good thing in the early stages of training. Only my opinion; but there is a 'professional' need to be grounded in the real deal; hand flying in the bumps, awareness of the terrain, and understanding of where the weather is, where its likely to be better and where the 'trap' points are is an essential element. My grand kids can type 60 WPM - left handed on a 'screen' - but the notion of descending, over rising terrain, in cloud which is orthographically uplifting, while flying an aircraft is beyond their comprehension or learning.
For a complete diorama of the current shortcomings in pilot basic training - look no further than the BN2 event in Tasmania. No ones fault - but it does beg questions a Coroner has no chance of answering.
Here endeth the ramble, with apologies to the pureist and academics and law makers; but IMO the 'problem' begins (and ends) at grass root level; barring that there will always be 'them as what's gunna do-it' anyway. Those we cannot help.
Toot toot.
Poor old Coroner; what a tangle. Recommendation #2 caught my attention.
Recommendation 2 – that CASA increase IFR training and recency requirements for PPL candidates and holders, for the purpose of, but not necessarily limited to, further education for candidates on the fatal dangers of inadvertent entry into IMC.
Aye, but: is that a 'real' solution? The CASA response below defines the perennial problem, one which has never, globally, ever really been 'solved';.
13. To the extent that the recommendation is targeted at CASA increasing IFR training and recency requirements, CASA notes that IFR training, by its nature, is designed to teach the skills necessary for pilots to safely fly by reference to instruments only. It does not form part of the general PPL syllabus of training as it is an additional skill and separate rating for flying operations conducted under the IFR.:-*CASA considers that the training presently provided to PPL pilots around the need to ensure they stay in VFR conditions is adequate and that more specific IFR training is only necessary for pilots who wish to operate under the IFR.*
That last sentence presents a clear, cut and dried stand point, which, in essence, is bang on the money; no argument. However; VFR pilots pushing on into Instrument conditions continues, world wide, to be a big number on the butchers bill. A solution is required and IMO it is not CASA's, FAA, CAA or any other 'authorities' job to stop the body count. Perspective is needed from the pilot body; that (IMO) is where the solution lays.
Both question and problem for the VFR pilot lays within the ever asked question - 'go' or; not go? - that is the question; ain't it?
“Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,etc...
Several ways to go toward a 'solution' which does not involve 'complex' regulation or outrageous costs. But 'brass tacks' first: if you were scheduled for heart surgery and your plumber turned up to do the job; or, if a power line fell across the garage roof, would you get a ladder from the shed, climb up and repair the break? What if there was a gas leak at home; would you try to fix it with a blow torch? Of course not; like fire fighting or Air Traffic control at Mascot - these are tasks which require dedicated training and a proven skill set. So why would anyone persist in flying into weather condition for which they neither have the training, demonstrated skills and experience to do the bloody job. Its balmy, statistically proven to be so and dangerous. 'Managing a flight, in real IFR weather is governed by some rules which are an unbreakable tenet for survival; Lowest safe altitude; minima; ice management; fuel management; diversion; and the ability to draw the line; thus far and no further will I go.
The basic ability to execute a Rate 1 turn; on the clocks should be and was taught from the very first flying lesson; (well back in my day it was). Turn crosswind - set the turn angle by visual reference; then confirm - 80 IAS = 8+7 :: a Rate 1@15° angle of bank, ball in the middle - good job ; habit formed from first circuit. Basic escape from the insidious Bollocks of 'inadvertent'. There is NO inadvertent involved - none whatsoever.
One could lay some 'blame' at the feet of the BoM; they have a wide margin for error on a forecast. This works both ways; - for and against an outcome. It is quite possible to have to battle your way down to 'minima' and just 'squeak' in - legal on a reasonable forecast; and be equally worried along the journey about a forecast only to find an easy approach in the mildest of conditions. Such is the inexact science of computer generated models. BUT, that is what you have to work with. So then; what must we teach our VFR pilots?
Only my considered opinion and an insignificant one at best but; try I must.
Item 1 : ensure, from the beginning of 'training' that all in flight manoeuvres are initially set up by visual reference and confirmed by flight instruments; make it a life long habit, deeply entrenched.
Item 2 : Encourage 'students' to not just 'pass' the Met exam. Hell's bells' the BoM are only making educated 'guesses' and working with 'trend' models to forecast the weather and they all hold university degrees in the subject (well, mostly). Pilots (no matter the stamp) must; and I do stress 'must' be able to evaluate a 'forecast' and formulate a plan of action based on the worst case; particularly with regard to icing, turbulence and the effects of both wind and temperature on the terrain and flight path. Rule 1 - always - always - always have the 'back door' wide open. If trumps turn to crap - then at least; at the critical juncture; there is a viable, pre formulated 'escape' route (plan of action - just in case) available from the 'sticking points' noted along the flight path.
Item 3 : While I am a great believer in and frequent 'user' of Auto pilot and GPS systems; I am not certain that an 'early' dependency on such luxury items is a good thing in the early stages of training. Only my opinion; but there is a 'professional' need to be grounded in the real deal; hand flying in the bumps, awareness of the terrain, and understanding of where the weather is, where its likely to be better and where the 'trap' points are is an essential element. My grand kids can type 60 WPM - left handed on a 'screen' - but the notion of descending, over rising terrain, in cloud which is orthographically uplifting, while flying an aircraft is beyond their comprehension or learning.
For a complete diorama of the current shortcomings in pilot basic training - look no further than the BN2 event in Tasmania. No ones fault - but it does beg questions a Coroner has no chance of answering.
Here endeth the ramble, with apologies to the pureist and academics and law makers; but IMO the 'problem' begins (and ends) at grass root level; barring that there will always be 'them as what's gunna do-it' anyway. Those we cannot help.
Toot toot.