johnh wrote:
A bit off topic, but interesting. 91.157 is a bit self-contradictory (now THAT has never happened in the FARs before). In the first paragraphs it says “lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport” but then it says “may only be conducted with an ATC clearance” – not specifically a tower. I’ve certainly been given SVFR by Norcal Approach, and although I was on my way into Livermore (KLVK) I’m pretty sure I wasn’t in their airspace when I asked and got the clearance.
Such a clearance is issued prior to entering the surface class E, D or C airspace, so this is not abnormal. The clearance applies to operations inside the lateral boundaries of the surface airspace and not to operations in E or G airspace outside the surface boundaries.
johnh wrote:
I don’t know. Maybe Socal is stricter than Norcal.
Possibly. I certainly notice a difference in controlling when flying between the two.
Ibra wrote:
Peter wrote:
What you can’t do, I am told, is fly slowly or hover in IMC, in most of them
What basis for that: traffic separation/collision? or need for visual references when flying slow/hovering?
Or both (you can’t do aeros in IMC on fixed wings )
My helicopter instructor had an IR and he told me it is the lack of visual reference. It is hard to hover without a horizon (although some helicopters do have automatic stabilisation).
At speed, the tail assembly wants to point backwards, so the problem is simpler. Actually, the problem is much simpler: without the tail’s stabilisation, any error in one helicopter control requires a nicely timed correction in at least two.
I know a very experienced turbine heli pilot (he flew an MD500 around the world) who told me it is “impossible” to hover in IMC. Well, you can hover in terms of keeping the heli the right way up (minimising sideways drift involves a significant roll to one side of about 7 degrees or something like that) but it will drift around all over the place.
" VFR flight in visibilities below 5 km below cloud is reasonable in many circumstances. In the flatlands of Eastern England, for example, there’s not much to be concerned about."
My very limited experience of low cloud and "just better than minimum " visibility in flatlands leads me to the opposite opinion.
In valleys, you have an indication of cloudbase ahead which you don’t get in flatland. I have more experience in that environment.
See what at 5 km? A white cottage against brown moor, or a fogbank against grey cloud?
Yes that’s true.
I think that very few people fly into terrain which they can see.
And if you were flying in visibility so bad that the hill appears really late, you would do anything possible to avoid hitting it, or hitting it square-on. Probably, you would climb like crazy and hope the hill was not too tall.
So I reckon this guy was flying in IMC at the time and just flew into rising terrain.
Hmmm, except that the transponder reported a 2000fpm decent at the time of the crash…
The eyewitness testimony sure backs up CFIT though.
Back in the student pilot days, I was taught: when inadvertently entering IMC, make a 180 and go back to the VMC.
By the looks of Flightradar24, that’s exactly what this guy did, and what led him to colliding with a hill.
airways wrote:
Back in the student pilot days, I was taught: when inadvertently entering IMC, make a 180 and go back to the VMC.
For an IR-rated going VFR in IMC (which is an emergency), I would expect climb above MSA and let ATC know before doing anything else?
