Fair enough - me first...
OK; it was my idea after all, to summon up as wide a range of 'experience' and 'operational savvy' to at least attempt to find a solution to the VMC qualified pilot coming to grief (or hot water) in IMC. It is, world wide, a major problem; but not so much in lands where the weather is a lot less benevolent than the Australian 'norm'.
I intend, deliberately, not to add in the safety improvements auto pilot and GPS navigation afford; both require a 'training' and educational element which can be easily provided. The only remote problem I see is a complete dependence on these systems and the 'software' associated. As a fully paid up member of the 'old-school' philosophy applying to both Murphy's & Sods law of the sea; whilst enjoying (greatly) the luxuries provided, I am always - always of a mind set which verifies; first we try, then we trust. But enough said, for that is a different discussion.
“Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?”
VMC qualified entering IMC; is a risk, but quantifiable on a scale; a quick scamper over a high spot; or a slide through a valley; each time, the 'risk' needs to be evaluated. The quality of that 'evaluation' depends on several variable parameters; it is a 'skill': but that 'skill' is also dependent on many variables. But now I digress. Let us simply focus (for now) on the median of the most fatalities - Oh, what, there isn't one? Then let's begin, at the beginning; at the grass roots.
Restricted PPL. Let's have a 'candidate' (victim) - introducing Joe Average. So, happily through the basics of RPPL Joe wants to stretch his wings - perhaps even has notions of acquiring professional status; but, at the moment the wide world outside the training area is 'verboten', he must learn to 'navigate'. More head scratching and 'book-working' but exams passed. So, now ready to apply the essential 'learning' to a practical purpose, i.e. go somewhere. But there are some minor road blocks to this ambition and here we encounter the first of 'things' which (IMO) are the root cause of many of the fatal accidents we encounter. Now we enter the realm of rigid requirement and again (IMO) the very place where the seeds are sown for many VMC pilots fatal events in IMC. In short, they have NDI of what they are actually looking at. Why? Well because they have never seen it before.......
The 'system' demands' they complete (say) five 'navigational' exercises of 'x' duration and etc. All laid out - boxes to tick. Now then; Joe turns up bright and early - gets the 'met' data; plans his route, etc. and meets with his instructing pilot. Over a coffee they discuss and do that which is demanded- so far so good - BUT. The weather forecast looks 'sketchy' - maybe - maybe not. Other routes are in the same boat - so it looks like a 'no-go' for lesson one.
Why - well the costs are serious; and, importantly, the penalty for 'non completion' of Nav 1 is - do it again. So, the only chance 'Joe' has to learn about operating in 'sketchy' weather conditions is 'cancelled' - until the weather improves, Moorabbin Aviation Services (for example) charges are 'representative' and competitive; but they are a significant factor in the decision to 'go' or not go. So, to meet the 'requirement' Joe must wait for 'good conditions' to tick the Nav ! box.
Proposition. For educated consideration. What if:-
Joe turns up are the weather is 'marginal'. But, instead of a rigid requirement; the 'system' mandated a 'block' of - for sake of a 'number' say 20 hrs of 'navigational' experience? So now, Joe and instructor can 'toddle off' and see what the forecast was, in reality. Together, the instructor (in command) can 'teach' about the weather and assist Joe to make 'considered' decisions; Joe experiences, first hand, what the 'weather' really means to his desired destination and gains an appreciation of the manifold risks. All on his first 'Nav'. Food for thought and an appreciation of what 'sketchy' weather looks like and 'the options' and the 'traps'. In what should have been a two hour Nav exercise; Joe has, in the 1.2 hours gained 'hands on' real life experience, An experience which may, one day, spare him and his kids the death trap of 'no ducking idea'.
So, instead of a large bill for an uncompleted exercise; Joe toddles off with a credit of 1.2 hours off his 20 hour bill and he has learned some valuable lessons about 'weather flying'. Real experience. Even if the next 10 hours of 'dual' all ended up being a diversion and return to base due weather; so what. He has 'met-the-beast' and learned to beat it. My Granny with about two hours of instruction could find her way across Australia with only a road map. So what are we teaching student navigators? Only to tick the boxes and only fly in 'gin clear' skies. Ah; if it was always so. Sooner or later, one day, the average Joe is going to be confronted with weather 'not quite' as scripted. It is essential that they learn, from Nav 1 when to cut, when to run and when to find a friendly pub and call it quits for the day.
Proposal - Make it a 'block' of navigational experience for qualification; partly (mostly?) under instruction, to 'assist' with weather related decision making. Discard the iron clad, rigid system of 'x' number of 'exercises' - in the best weather conditions. Cost benefit - Yes. Experience benefit - priceless. Selah.
That, is my two bob's worth. Apologies for the long hand ramble; but the VMC pilot crashing in IMC is a serious statistic; expensive, heartbreaking and although never completely preventable; perhaps some 'out of the box' thinking could reduce that number. Look, I don't know - but FWIW;- a stray notion.
Toot - toot..
OK; it was my idea after all, to summon up as wide a range of 'experience' and 'operational savvy' to at least attempt to find a solution to the VMC qualified pilot coming to grief (or hot water) in IMC. It is, world wide, a major problem; but not so much in lands where the weather is a lot less benevolent than the Australian 'norm'.
I intend, deliberately, not to add in the safety improvements auto pilot and GPS navigation afford; both require a 'training' and educational element which can be easily provided. The only remote problem I see is a complete dependence on these systems and the 'software' associated. As a fully paid up member of the 'old-school' philosophy applying to both Murphy's & Sods law of the sea; whilst enjoying (greatly) the luxuries provided, I am always - always of a mind set which verifies; first we try, then we trust. But enough said, for that is a different discussion.
“Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?”
VMC qualified entering IMC; is a risk, but quantifiable on a scale; a quick scamper over a high spot; or a slide through a valley; each time, the 'risk' needs to be evaluated. The quality of that 'evaluation' depends on several variable parameters; it is a 'skill': but that 'skill' is also dependent on many variables. But now I digress. Let us simply focus (for now) on the median of the most fatalities - Oh, what, there isn't one? Then let's begin, at the beginning; at the grass roots.
Restricted PPL. Let's have a 'candidate' (victim) - introducing Joe Average. So, happily through the basics of RPPL Joe wants to stretch his wings - perhaps even has notions of acquiring professional status; but, at the moment the wide world outside the training area is 'verboten', he must learn to 'navigate'. More head scratching and 'book-working' but exams passed. So, now ready to apply the essential 'learning' to a practical purpose, i.e. go somewhere. But there are some minor road blocks to this ambition and here we encounter the first of 'things' which (IMO) are the root cause of many of the fatal accidents we encounter. Now we enter the realm of rigid requirement and again (IMO) the very place where the seeds are sown for many VMC pilots fatal events in IMC. In short, they have NDI of what they are actually looking at. Why? Well because they have never seen it before.......
The 'system' demands' they complete (say) five 'navigational' exercises of 'x' duration and etc. All laid out - boxes to tick. Now then; Joe turns up bright and early - gets the 'met' data; plans his route, etc. and meets with his instructing pilot. Over a coffee they discuss and do that which is demanded- so far so good - BUT. The weather forecast looks 'sketchy' - maybe - maybe not. Other routes are in the same boat - so it looks like a 'no-go' for lesson one.
Why - well the costs are serious; and, importantly, the penalty for 'non completion' of Nav 1 is - do it again. So, the only chance 'Joe' has to learn about operating in 'sketchy' weather conditions is 'cancelled' - until the weather improves, Moorabbin Aviation Services (for example) charges are 'representative' and competitive; but they are a significant factor in the decision to 'go' or not go. So, to meet the 'requirement' Joe must wait for 'good conditions' to tick the Nav ! box.
Proposition. For educated consideration. What if:-
Joe turns up are the weather is 'marginal'. But, instead of a rigid requirement; the 'system' mandated a 'block' of - for sake of a 'number' say 20 hrs of 'navigational' experience? So now, Joe and instructor can 'toddle off' and see what the forecast was, in reality. Together, the instructor (in command) can 'teach' about the weather and assist Joe to make 'considered' decisions; Joe experiences, first hand, what the 'weather' really means to his desired destination and gains an appreciation of the manifold risks. All on his first 'Nav'. Food for thought and an appreciation of what 'sketchy' weather looks like and 'the options' and the 'traps'. In what should have been a two hour Nav exercise; Joe has, in the 1.2 hours gained 'hands on' real life experience, An experience which may, one day, spare him and his kids the death trap of 'no ducking idea'.
So, instead of a large bill for an uncompleted exercise; Joe toddles off with a credit of 1.2 hours off his 20 hour bill and he has learned some valuable lessons about 'weather flying'. Real experience. Even if the next 10 hours of 'dual' all ended up being a diversion and return to base due weather; so what. He has 'met-the-beast' and learned to beat it. My Granny with about two hours of instruction could find her way across Australia with only a road map. So what are we teaching student navigators? Only to tick the boxes and only fly in 'gin clear' skies. Ah; if it was always so. Sooner or later, one day, the average Joe is going to be confronted with weather 'not quite' as scripted. It is essential that they learn, from Nav 1 when to cut, when to run and when to find a friendly pub and call it quits for the day.
Proposal - Make it a 'block' of navigational experience for qualification; partly (mostly?) under instruction, to 'assist' with weather related decision making. Discard the iron clad, rigid system of 'x' number of 'exercises' - in the best weather conditions. Cost benefit - Yes. Experience benefit - priceless. Selah.
That, is my two bob's worth. Apologies for the long hand ramble; but the VMC pilot crashing in IMC is a serious statistic; expensive, heartbreaking and although never completely preventable; perhaps some 'out of the box' thinking could reduce that number. Look, I don't know - but FWIW;- a stray notion.
Toot - toot..