First flight after qualification - first stuff up

[Chris Tarran]

Did some flying Monday & yesterday. Monday was terrific, did a couple of sesssions of circuits for practice and had a couple of short flights up and down Spencer Gulf, just beautiful.

 

Went up again Tuesday for another flight and decided on a short (100Nm or so each way) there and back between Pt Augusta & Cleve. Got the forecast, did my flight plan, pre-flighted the aircraft and took off. Cloud was a bit low but vis was good (emphasis on the was). Nearly to Cleve the cloud got lower and lower and there were a few light showers but I could still see my destination. Not for long. Suddenly I am boxed in and getting forced lower. OK , no matter, I'd planned an alternative into Kimba so change course and head there. Whoops boxed in again and suddenly I am at 1500 feet to remain in VMC (Elevation is 1000). OK plan C, urgently. Found a nice paddock with a made track down the middle and did a precautionary landing and remained there for over 4 hours. Cloud base raised itself over the afternoon and I eventually had an uneventful takeoff and return flight to Pt Augusta.

 

Sounds OK? It wasn't. It was the most frightening experience of my life for a VERY long time and I will NEVER do that again. While it turned out OK and the only penalty was inconvenience it could have been much worse. Lesson learned? Make a firm decision early and if in ANY doubt return to base.

 

Cheers from someone who is glad to still be here.

 

Chris

 

 

[Tomo]

Thanks for sharing Chris! Always try and keep a back door out unless you have an aerodrome in sight out front. Well, that's the theory isn't it.

 

Can't really comment on your decisions about not turning back sooner as I wasn't there to see what it was like, but I do congratulate you on using your skills and doing a precautionary landing to wait it out. Well done on surviving an initial mistake and using your skills to continue your survival!

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

Thanks for sharing Chris! Always try and keep a back door out unless you have an aerodrome in sight out front. Well, that's the theory isn't it.Can't really comment on your decisions about not turning back sooner as I wasn't there to see what it was like, but I do congratulate you on using your skills and doing a precautionary landing to wait it out. Well done on surviving an initial mistake and using your skills to continue your survival!

Thanks Tomo. I appreciate your comments. Its always been said that getting your ticket is a license (or certificate) to learn. I just didn't expect the learning curve to be that steep. I'd like to emphasise it was entirely my fault. I believed the forecast and didn't modify my plans in the face of VERY compelling evidence it was wrong. I have learnt a heap out of this and if my experience prevents someone else from doing the same, and perhaps with different consequences, all the better.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good outcome Chris, we really need a lot more contributions and training data on Met and how to evaluate it in flight.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Thanks for sharing Chris.Im glad your still with us.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Thanks for your post Chris, not everyone would be prepared to admit their mistakes on a public forum. Well done.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

Good outcome Chris, we really need a lot more contributions and training data on Met and how to evaluate it in flight.

Thanks TP. I guess this is a Human Factors thread really, i.e. how we make poor (or no) decisions in the face of the evidence.

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

Thanks for your post Chris, not everyone would be prepared to admit their mistakes on a public forum. Well done.Alan.

Hi Alan,

 

I thought long and hard about whether to post my experience but came to the conclusion that the information and the combination of circumstances could be helpful to others, particularly low hours pilots like me. If it helps (or saves) someone else it is worth the public admission.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

Thanks for sharing Chris.Im glad your still with us.

Thanks Dazza. Me to (and my wife and family).

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I always say experience is about getting into situations where we think to our selves "I don't want to be here" and then making sure that we never get into that situation again.

 

My suggestion to anyone pushing on into deteriorating weather would be; To pay at least as much attention to the weather behind, as you do to the weather in front. That way you always have the option of a 180 degree turn.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark (aka HH)

 

 

[rgmwa]

Well, if I ever get caught like that I hope I can deal with it as capably as you did.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

Well, if I ever get caught like that I hope I can deal with it as capably as you did.rgmwa

Thanks rgmwa and I hope you can but do you want a better idea? Don't get caught like I did, it was terrifying. I thought I was conservative .... I'm going to be a lot more conservative from here on in.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[facthunter]

You certainly did the right thing posting . You will encourage others to post also, by being honest. You know you were lucky. The experience will help you in the future. You may get caught out still . It can always happen but the chances are less now . You will not fly or will take diversionary action sooner,

 

. Many of us have been there , some are not around to talk about it.. Nev

 

 

[Hongie]

Well done mate, never having been in the situation, I imagine it's nerve wracking... Good job getting on the ground in one piece, with the added stress not to mention a unfamiliar landing area.

 

Thanks for sharing

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

You certainly did the right thing posting . You will encourage others to post also, by being honest. You know you were lucky. The experience will help you in the future. You may get caught out still . It can always happen but the chances are less now . You will not fly or will take diversionary action sooner,. Many of us have been there , some are not around to talk about it.. Nev

Thanks Nev. I hope that my experience will (can) help others. Even the possibility of flying into IMC is something I will avoid like the plague, unless I have undertaken the appropriate training and I am in an appropriately equipped aircraft. I think the key lesson for me has been make an early and firm decision based on the conditions and follow through immediately. Any delay could kill you.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

Well done mate, never having been in the situation, I imagine it's nerve wracking... Good job getting on the ground in one piece, with the added stress not to mention a unfamiliar landing area.Thanks for sharing

Thanks Hongie,

 

It all turned out OK but as I said earlier it was the most frightening experience I can remember. I am glad I was trained by an excellent instructor and under pressure his training kicked in. Bit of luck finding a good landing site but that was also part of the training ... always be looking.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[storchy neil]

Sounds OK? It wasn't. It was the most frightening experience of my life for a VERY long time and I will NEVER do that again. While it turned out OK and the only penalty was inconvenience it could have been much worse. Lesson learned? Make a firm decision early and if in ANY doubt return to base.

chris flying to training area one day the instructor made the coment about a strip that we were about to fly over 3 minuates later the mongral pulled the power and said the moter just shxx itself land we were at 45oo ft i set up at best glide speed started looking for a good landing area found a paddock with a few trees i would have landed there

his comment was what in hell was wrong with landing on the strip just behind you (my plane doesant have rearvision mirrors)

 

just keep in mind what you have just flown over may save you when you fly

 

the wheather not good in front take a look behind saved me a couple of times trying to get out of melb through the kilmore gap neil

 

Quote formatting corrected - Mod

 

 

[Studentbiggles]

Thankyou Chris for sharing your post and honest appraisal..........and I'm glad for the outcome that could have gone horribly wrong............your post highlighted how important your training kicked in at that vital time.............Alley

 

Fly and Keep Safe

 

 

[Jenkin. J. Steed.]

As a student pilot who has just gone solo for the first time, I have this sort of stuff to look forward to. (Not) I have 30 + years in the marine industry and have no drama at all with weather and passage planning for trips of far longer duration tha the average R.A.. aircraft is capable of. What astounds me though, is the gibberish that is presented as a forecast. I am used to clear concise language. I understand the reasoning behind using UTC and can even cope with learning new abbreviations, but some of the NAIPS descriptors do my head in. "30" can mean the 30 th day, Half past the hour, 030 deg true, 30 knots, 30% probability. And 3,000 feet. I'm sure I've probably missed a few as well... Some of the abbreviations are sensible such as CAVOK. but why is good visibility 9999 instead of something like 10+. It isn't making things easier or shorter??? Why are negative temperatures preceded by MS which I presume is an abbreviation for 'minus'? I have been told that some of the abbreviations date back to the days of Morse code and the need to keep things brief. Is it the case that there was no sequence to represent 'Negative'? I also understand that some of the abbreviations are international. But why persist with such an archaic system? In the examples in my learning handbook, it actually uses up less vertical space on the page to explain it than some of the sample forecasts. I'm not sure where exactly the forecasts are generated, but I can see one or two scenarios. If they are computer generated, then run a parallel program with the option of receiving them in plain (plane) english. For VFR pilots. If they are compiled by hand by a meteorologist, then surely it would be better for all and less chance of error, if the data didnt have to be coded by them. Then decoded by the user. Is it really necessary, or is it just a bit of, look how good I am, I can understand this stuff that no one else can. Surely if the info was easier to read, it would mean less chance of misreading and a higher likelihood of regular en-route updates?

 

 

[turboplanner]

All true I'm afraid Jenkin, an Authority unable to generate enough momentum to get out of the telex era.

 

 

[winsor68]

As a student pilot who has just gone solo for the first time, I have this sort of stuff to look forward to. (Not) I have 30 + years in the marine industry and have no drama at all with weather and passage planning for trips of far longer duration tha the average R.A.. aircraft is capable of. What astounds me though, is the gibberish that is presented as a forecast. I am used to clear concise language. I understand the reasoning behind using UTC and can even cope with learning new abbreviations, but some of the NAIPS descriptors do my head in. "30" can mean the 30 th day, Half past the hour, 030 deg true, 30 knots, 30% probability. And 3,000 feet. I'm sure I've probably missed a few as well... Some of the abbreviations are sensible such as CAVOK. but why is good visibility 9999 instead of something like 10+. It isn't making things easier or shorter??? Why are negative temperatures preceded by MS which I presume is an abbreviation for 'minus'? I have been told that some of the abbreviations date back to the days of Morse code and the need to keep things brief. Is it the case that there was no sequence to represent 'Negative'? I also understand that some of the abbreviations are international. But why persist with such an archaic system? In the examples in my learning handbook, it actually uses up less vertical space on the page to explain it than some of the sample forecasts. I'm not sure where exactly the forecasts are generated, but I can see one or two scenarios. If they are computer generated, then run a parallel program with the option of receiving them in plain (plane) english. For VFR pilots. If they are compiled by hand by a meteorologist, then surely it would be better for all and less chance of error, if the data didnt have to be coded by them. Then decoded by the user. Is it really necessary, or is it just a bit of, look how good I am, I can understand this stuff that no one else can. Surely if the info was easier to read, it would mean less chance of misreading and a higher likelihood of regular en-route updates?

Isn't there a website that fixes this?

 

 

[pudestcon]

Isn't there a website that fixes this?

YEP. You can get to it from the top of this page:cheezy grin:

 

Click on "Resources", then click on "Weather", cursor down to just below the map of Australia and select the area you want a forcast on. Voila!! A forcast you can read, with the abbreviations included as well. How good is that!!

 

Pud

 

 

[Jenkin. J. Steed.]

Thanks for that guys. I had only got as far as tapping in my local airfield code and getting gibberish (again). I had thought I would get the same by entering area 32 and hadn't bothered going any further. Good to see there is a bit of common sense left in the world somewhere. And I still have my two laminated cards of abbreviations to decode my local TAF.