flying into ifr without training, sad outcome.

[BrendAn]

 

[Rastus]

[facthunter]

Plenty of people seem to think there's nothing to it.. Nev

[Garfly]

There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed in this PoA forum:

 

 

Pilots of America forum "How long can you keep it up" March 27 2018

 

A couple of excerpts:

 

Everskyward said:

I think the video might have a negative impact on VFR pilots who have viewed it. If you think you're going to crash and die it's probably harder to stay calm and work through the problem.

For me, the presentation, at least the introduction, is something worthy of a tabloid TV show.

Strongly agreed, and that was my reaction the first time I saw it. The last thing we should be doing is inducing panic.

 

 

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:

So the stupid 178 number came from a study in the '50s where they took some pilots with exactly zero (as in none, ever) experience flying on instruments. (Not even once.) Stuck them in a Bo. Covered up the AI, DG, and rate of climb, and said "your airplane". And, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots. But 178 seconds

Yes, 178 seconds was the average time that a pilot was able to fly blind without instruments. But what they didn't tell you is that this group was the control group...pilots with zero training, zero instruments and zero visibility. Even an IFR trained pilot is likely to crash in that situation.

In fact, the study was actually to test whether or not a VFR pilot could be trained to use instruments to make a 180 turn. After "crashing", they taught each pilot the techniques to execute a 180 with reference to instruments and tested them again - every single pilot was able to learn to reverse course and get out of the clouds again.

Then someone came up with a scare video based on the control group and how clouds were a deathtrap waiting to snare VFR pilots and lure them to their doom. Now, that is all anyone know of the study and the real lesson has been lost to the drama. Sigh....

 

 

And this discussion where the original experiment was returned to its context:

 

 

 

178 seconds -- the facts about the experiment

GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM

 

 

The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled
"180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no
axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of
communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues
have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the
record straight.

* The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation
in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI.

* It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for
non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC

* The tests were conducted on a Beech Bonanza C-35 in flight (not a "ground
trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article)

* The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of
those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not
"none since primary training", none at all)

* The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to
fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly.

* None of the subjects had soloed a Bonanza. As far as I can tell, only 3
of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them
recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers.

* Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL
syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total.

* The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn
indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the
entire experiment.

* The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed
at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude. The time was
measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an
'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to
be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall.

* 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft
into a whip-stall.

* Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178
seconds

* There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn
technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study

* By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours
(mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique.

* The subjects were again tested by simulating instrument conditions, and
asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and
establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times.

* Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one
involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the
descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered
that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual
below cloud, the impact would have been survivable.

The technique:

Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder.
1) Hands off the control column
2) Lower the landing gear
3) Reduce power
4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph)
5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph
6) Note the compass heading
7) Turn using the rudder
😎 Roll out with appropriate lead or lag
9) Center the turn needle
10) Reduce power for a controlled descent

It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most
difficult psychologically!

The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one
that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter
IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the
result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument
training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex
aircraft.

Julian Scarfe
 

Edited May 14 by Garfly

[facthunter]

I would not use any forum as a reliable source of information on this subject  The "Technique"... Is  real  BS.  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, Garfly said:

 

 

 

 

There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed in this PoA forum:

 

 

Pilots of America forum "How long can you keep it up" March 27 2018

 

A couple of excerpts:

 

Everskyward said:

I think the video might have a negative impact on VFR pilots who have viewed it. If you think you're going to crash and die it's probably harder to stay calm and work through the problem.

For me, the presentation, at least the introduction, is something worthy of a tabloid TV show.

Strongly agreed, and that was my reaction the first time I saw it. The last thing we should be doing is inducing panic.

 

 

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:

So the stupid 178 number came from a study in the '50s where they took some pilots with exactly zero (as in none, ever) experience flying on instruments. (Not even once.) Stuck them in a Bo. Covered up the AI, DG, and rate of climb, and said "your airplane". And, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots. But 178 seconds

Yes, 178 seconds was the average time that a pilot was able to fly blind without instruments. But what they didn't tell you is that this group was the control group...pilots with zero training, zero instruments and zero visibility. Even an IFR trained pilot is likely to crash in that situation.

In fact, the study was actually to test whether or not a VFR pilot could be trained to use instruments to make a 180 turn. After "crashing", they taught each pilot the techniques to execute a 180 with reference to instruments and tested them again - every single pilot was able to learn to reverse course and get out of the clouds again.

Then someone came up with a scare video based on the control group and how clouds were a deathtrap waiting to snare VFR pilots and lure them to their doom. Now, that is all anyone know of the study and the real lesson has been lost to the drama. Sigh....

 

 

And this discussion where the original experiment was returned to its context:

 

 

 

178 seconds -- the facts about the experiment

GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM

 

 

The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled
"180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no
axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of
communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues
have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the
record straight.

* The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation
in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI.

* It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for
non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC

* The tests were conducted on a Beech Bonanza C-35 in flight (not a "ground
trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article)

* The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of
those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not
"none since primary training", none at all)

* The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to
fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly.

* None of the subjects had soloed a Bonanza. As far as I can tell, only 3
of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them
recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers.

* Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL
syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total.

* The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn
indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the
entire experiment.

* The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed
at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude. The time was
measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an
'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to
be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall.

* 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft
into a whip-stall.

* Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178
seconds

* There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn
technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study

* By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours
(mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique.

* The subjects were again tested by simulating instrument conditions, and
asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and
establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times.

* Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one
involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the
descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered
that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual
below cloud, the impact would have been survivable.

The technique:

Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder.
1) Hands off the control column
2) Lower the landing gear
3) Reduce power
4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph)
5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph
6) Note the compass heading
7) Turn using the rudder
😎 Roll out with appropriate lead or lag
9) Center the turn needle
10) Reduce power for a controlled descent

It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most
difficult psychologically!

The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one
that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter
IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the
result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument
training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex
aircraft.

Julian Scarfe
 

Over the years, we've actually lost a few from this site after the discussions were hijacked by people criticising this video. Of course you might be able to keep going for more than 178 seconds; of course you may only last 20 seconds, of course you don't have magic ears; "The sensory areas of the inner ear cannot detect slight changes in angular acceleration, nor can they accurately sense changes that occur at a uniform rate over a period. On the other hand, false sensations are often generated due simply to movements of the head and may lead the pilot to believe the attitude of the airplane has changed when, in fact, it has not. "

 

What usually happens is the ones that get killed play around with flying near cloud and through light cloud with clear patches, and becomes more and more confident, oten loudly condemning the 178 seonc video. Then we see the photos of a squashed pilot.

 

RA pilots will not be flying into IFR; if you break the rules you will be flying into IMC.

IFR stands for Instrument Flight Rules and you need to qualify in GA and have a suitable GA aircraft for IMC.

 

RA Pilots have to do a lot wrong to get into the above predicament: The diagramme below is from page 205 of the Visual Flight Rules Guide 2024.

You are required to have 5 kilometres clear vision in front of you at all times. When the cloud gets that close you turn around and get out.

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Instrument Meteorological Conditions IS indeed the correct term.  Conditions permitting VFR flight are covered above. VFR at night requires special training and has extra risks associated with it for obvious reasons.  Nev

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Over the years, we've actually lost a few from this site after the discussions were hijacked by people criticising this video.

"Hijacked"  huh!!??   And thereby "lost  a few", eh?  Oh, really?!! 

 

Choice language; choice accusations you throw around willy nilly.

 

If you cared to look you'd see I was first to endorse the deadly message of the original video posted by BrendAn above..

That could indicate that I'm not especially needful of your stern lecture on the subject.  

If you had the discernment to see beyond dogma you'd get it; the issue is about the most effective way to get the message across, not the (obvious) message itself.

Which, by the way, nobody is denying. To quote Capt.Thorpe, lead critic (above) of 178 secs  "and, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots."

 

So time to climb down off your charger, the dangerous straw-men you spied are now scattered to the four winds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14 by Garfly

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, Garfly said:

"Hijacked"  huh!!??   And thereby "lost  a few", eh?  Oh, really?!! 

 

Choice language; choice accusations you throw around willy nilly.

 

If you cared to look you'd see I was first to endorse the deadly message of the original video posted by Brendan above..

That could indicate that I'm not especially needful of your stern lecture on the subject.  

If you had the discernment to see beyond dogma you'd get it; the issue is about the most effective way to get the message across, not the (obvious) message itself.

Which, by the way, nobody is denying. To quote Capt.Thorpe, lead critic of 178 secs  "and, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots."

 

So time to climb down off your charger, the dangerous straw-men you spied are now scattered to the four winds.

 

 

 

 

By all means feel free to ignore what I said.

[Garfly]

11 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

By all means feel free to ignore what I said.

There you go again with your straw men.

 

What you said about the dangers of IMC to VFR pilots can hardly be ignored by anyone; it's true - all too obviously so.

 

What should be ignored (easier said than done) is your patronising attack on any but the most conventional means of spreading the word.

 

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

I would not use any forum as a reliable source of information on this subject  The "Technique"... Is  real  BS.  Nev

I, for one, would like to have you expand on that, Nev. 

 

You could say that 'forums' are as reliable - or not - as other sources. It depends. Discernment is key.

 

Anyway, how about these two excerpts on the subject (from authoritative journals)

 

This is one from Aviation Safety Magazine:

 

 Losing Orientation • Getting at the real-world causes of spatial disorientation.

... //  Two Seconds Short of Three Minutes

A 1954 study, the “180-degree Turn Experiment” commissioned by the AOPA Foundation

and conducted by the University of Illinois, studied 20 non-instrument pilots flying a Beech C35 Bonanza.

The purpose was to teach a simple recovery technique for disorientation in IMC. The technique involved

leveling the wings, centering the ball, slowing the plane down, controlling the altitude with trim and slowly

doing a 180-turn with rudder alone (to avoid over-controlling). Once heading in the opposite direction,

participants were taught to reduce power and start a gentle descent to assist in gently breaking out below

the ceiling without inducing disorientation.

The study is famous, or infamous if you will, for the statistics recorded before the subjects learned the recovery technique.

It took them an average of 178 seconds from the VFR-to-IMC transition to enter either a stall or graveyard spiral.

There’s a video out there popularizing the study and whether you read the script or view one of the video’s several versions,

the melodramatic countdown reinforces the idea that the average VFR-only pilot has less than three minutes before they are dead

unless they have some kind of coping strategy to safely get out of the clouds.

The recovery technique taught in the 1954 study, a 180-degree turn out of IMC back to VMC, proved remarkably effective. With six one-hour training sessions, the study’s subjects improved the 178-second crash-and-burn statistic to a 98-percent survival rate.

 

 

This is a bit from an AOPA article which tends away from the 180 "technique" toward the climb straight ahead escape method (for anyone caught out).

 

 

... //  Plan A: Avoid VFR into IMC

The best antidote to a scary VFR into IMC encounter is to set personal minimums reflecting your proficiency level and adjusting them as needed. In addition, use flight-risk assessment tools to make well-informed go/no-go decisions ... ///

 

Plan B: Escape VFR into IMC

Do you have a plan? Execute it immediately. Generally, we are taught to conduct a 180-degree turn to better weather conditions left behind. That could work if making the turn before entering the clouds. Another option could be to climb straight ahead—no turns and a light touch on the flight controls—until you’ve cleared the clouds. This requires little head movement to avoid experiencing spatial disorientation. In addition, you could declare an emergency with ATC. Controllers trained on VFR into IMC flight emergencies can help find better weather to escape to.

 

 

 

 

Losing Orientation - Aviation Safety

WWW.AVIATIONSAFETYMAGAZINE.COM

---

A common night disorientation scenario is transiting from an area with many lights to empty countryside with few scattered lights (or none at all). I distinctly remember my first experience with night disorientation.

 

178 seconds

WWW.AOPA.ORG

---

Visual flight rules (VFR) flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) is the worst weather-related cause of general aviation accidents each year—with an 86-percent fatality rate—involving VFR and...

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14 by Garfly

[BrendAn]

that video i posted shows how easy that pilot and his family could have lived.  he just made bad decisions until it was too late.

all these videos suggest switch to autopilot if equipped because it does not care if its in clouds but the pilot believed it was u/s because he had not learn't how to use it.

he could have turned back early as well.  he accepted an imc route when he wasn't rated for it. so many mistakes .

[spacesailor]

With today's technology,  IMC should be less dangerous. 

The pilot under the hood , is only trained to VFR , ( previous to their upgrade to ir ) .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

If you've done much Instrument flying you wouldn't need me to tell you what's wrong with the "technique" bit. Limited Panel is difficult and also tiring. You need at least one gyro instrument.  If you have a good Full panel  the artificial horizon makes it relatively simple to know which way is up. It was originally known as ATTITUDE Instrument Flying.  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

that video i posted shows how easy that pilot and his family could have lived.  he just made bad decisions until it was too late.

all these videos suggest switch to autopilot if equipped because it does not care if its in clouds but the pilot believed it was u/s because he had not learn't how to use it.

he could have turned back early as well.  he accepted an imc route when he wasn't rated for it. so many mistakes .

Part 2 of the problem is if you switch to autopilot you will smack into a granite cliff, because IFR requires flight planning to avoid this possibility.

There's no easy way out without the training and currency requited.

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Part 2 of the problem is if you switch to autopilot you will smack into a granite cliff, because IFR requires flight planning to avoid this possibility.

There's no easy way out without the training and currency requited.

good point but in this case he was on radar and they would have alerted him to set a climb to safe altitude if he wasn't already.

[jackc]

I had a horrible incident as a right seat passenger in a A36 Bonanza 42 years ago, the VFR Pilot (my boss at the time) A weather front came up enroute to Archerfield from Rockhampton.  We got to Gayndah and I figured he would land there, no he wanted to keep going, 

I said make left turn, me being the pseudo navigator with a fist full of charts and not even half a clue at what I was doing .

We go to the coast…….we got there with cloud down to 700ft. I said turn right at the beach and keep the sand on the right and the water on the left. He was visibly worried and I could honestly see it ending horribly bad. He ended up calling at Maroochydore on the radio and we were down to 600ft 🤢   He made a raggy landing because he was badly stressed. 
I will never forget that day, ever. We got a ride to Brisbane, I picked up a new Merc 2224 prime mover and drove home.

Th Boss got grounded there for 3 days and I believe he got roasted for making the flight.  

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, jackc said:

I had a horrible incident as a right seat passenger in a A36 Bonanza 42 years ago, the VFR Pilot (my boss at the time) A weather front came up enroute to Archerfield from Rockhampton.  We got to Gayndah and I figured he would land there, no he wanted to keep going, 

I said make left turn, me being the pseudo navigator with a fist full of charts and not even half a clue at what I was doing .

We go to the coast…….we got there with cloud down to 700ft. I said turn right at the beach and keep the sand on the right and the water on the left. He was visibly worried and I could honestly see it ending horribly bad. He ended up calling at Maroochydore on the radio and we were down to 600ft 🤢   He made a raggy landing because he was badly stressed. 
I will never forget that day, ever. We got a ride to Brisbane, I picked up a new Merc 2224 prime mover and drove home.

Th Boss got grounded there for 3 days and I believe he got roasted for making the flight.  

probably had to get his laundry done while he was grounded too.

[jackc]

I told one of his relatives, he will die in a plane crash one day 🤢

I do know he bought some kind of rocket ship from the U.S. 20 years ago, something like $3mil, and ferried it back to Sydney. Have not seen him for years, believe he owns a heap of car dealerships in Sydney. 

[facthunter]

You had a bit of luck riding with you. It used to be called "scud" running.  Nev

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

If you've done much Instrument flying you wouldn't need me to tell you what's wrong with the "technique" bit. Limited Panel is difficult and also tiring. You need at least one gyro instrument.  If you have a good Full panel  the artificial horizon makes it relatively simple to know which way is up. It was originally known as ATTITUDE Instrument Flying.  Nev

And since I've done none (like most here) I remain keen for tips and insights from them what have.

 

I don't believe VFR >> IMC crashes always and only happen to folks far less savvy, wise and law abiding than myself.

 

I'm probably asking too much but I sort of hoped you (and/or other pros) might compare and contrast those two competing IMC escape methods I referenced above: the immediate 180 degree escape versus the straight ahead climb [no turns] method.  (It's clear, of course, there ain't no guarantees one way or t'other.)

 

Anyway, Nev, don't complain that no one asks questions any more.   ;- )

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14 by Garfly

[facthunter]

IF you cared to read what I've posted over many years, you would be   aware of my consistent approach to this topic. Your last line is a CHEAP shot unworthy of you. The Part of my post you quoted WAS   information that I hoped would be useful. You could have built on that. OR ASKED A QUESTION .... of me  if that's what you actually wanted.  Nev

[Garfly]

What!!??  

You can't take a gentle jibe!!!?? 

That sir, is unworthy of you!!

You know I have 'cared to read' most what you've posted over many years.

I don't remember it all!  Okay??

Sheesh, talk about a cranky old men's club!!!

 

[facthunter]

I don't come here for the amusement of you to be shot down in flames for fun. Your last response is not helpful either. This place is a hostile environment for SERIOUS discussion and there couldn't be anything much more serious than the subject we are discussing. Just realise what you are doing. Most like me have left.. There's a time for humour but it's NOT all the time.  You know I'm a safety nut above all else.  Nev

[Garfly]

Nobody here is not a safety nut above all else.

Seeya later!