Passengers is one thing, but do we understand the risk? I would say “no”. It’s all feelings, and it’s all objectively wrong. We fly like we have been trained, and if anything happens that is outside the training we have had, it feels “wrong” somehow. It’s basically a culture of how things are supposed to be done, and as with all cultures, some people are more bore bound to it than others. There are lots of sub cultures also.
From what have seen here on this site, lots of people clearly take the stand that it’s “OK”, only if the regulations explicitly allow it. Others take the stand that it’s “OK” if it is not explicitly forbidden. IMO, the first group has no concept of risk whatsoever. The other group may, or may not have it, but in the end of the day, it’s mostly a cultural thing. The microlight and experimental “culture” is very different from the certified in this respect, yet the accident statistics show no differences to speak of. The only thing it shows is certified pilots jumping in a microligt/experimental aircraft without the needed “cultural” baggage, will stand a higher risk.
Passengers, forget it. They have zero clue. Either they thing the whole thing is deadly dangerous, lots of people are even afraid of flying twin turboprops, or they have no thoughts about the subject at all. Some think a jet plane is inherently much more safe than a propeller plane for instance.
Culture is the important thing here. VFR flight into IMC is more stupid than risky. Stupid as in driving against the lanes, not stupid as in not following the no entrance signs, if you understand the difference. A passenger has no way of understanding that difference.
LeSving wrote:
VFR flight into IMC is more stupid than risky
Uh? I presume you say it is stupid because it brings more risk?
Answering the question. No, not by a long shot. Just like others have stated here, it is clear that pilots don’t understand risk.
Oh VFR into IMC again. Talk about a subject where people who claim to understand risk just can’t get past their intuition and prejudice!
You are flying VFR in Class G in the UK at 2,400’, where the highest obstacle within 5 nm of your track is 700’, not speaking on the radio.
You enter cloud. You are now, presumably, stupid and at high risk.
But you come to your senses, and say to yourself “I am now IFR”. Now your stupidity is reset to within normal bounds and your risk is back to normal.
Then, because you are feeling a little impish today, you say to yourself “VFR”. Has your risk just gone through the roof and your stupidity quotient of the scale?
What if you jump either side of the line; “VFR”, “IFR”, “VFR”, “IFR”, “VFR”, “IFR”? Is the risk meter going from FSD to FSD?
That’s OK if you can fly on instruments, and have a properly equipped plane.
I think that’s an important point. Once you say “IFR” loud and clear (and of course if you have the ability to control the plane in IMC) your mindset changes. In IFR mode you will not nervously try to make out the ground or get beliw the clouds but develop a new plan: Call radar, file IFR, get vectors to the next ILS/RNAV aporoach, brief the approach.
But when you’re in the “VFR mindset” in IMC, constantly trying to get into VMC again, not really knowing what you do, not having a plan B … that’s when it gets really dangerous.
Is the diversion outside controlled airspace unique to the MEP IR test in the UK? I can see the logic, a wheezy piston multi engine will struggle to get back on airways following an EFATO on a go-around, but OTOH the UK is one of the few places you can fly IFR OCAS.
While I understand the big sky theory of collision avoidance, my preference is for IFR in CAS.
Climbing through the clag on an airways join some years back I got to have a good close look at the belly of another twin in IFR OCAS – he wasn’t even squawking. That bit of airspace is now CAS thanks to commercial traffic using the airport. It’s amazing how you can still see the exhaust stains, the underpants got changed later.
Timothy wrote:
But you come to your senses, and say to yourself “I am now IFR”
But the circumstance you quote you are not IFR, because you’re not complying with the Instrument Flight RULES. For sure, you are IMC.
RobertL18C wrote:
but OTOH the UK is one of the few places you can fly IFR OCAS.
Nope, SERA allows flight in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules pretty much anywhere. A refresh, the baseline IFR are terrain safe and semi-circular. That is it.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
because you’re not complying with the Instrument Flight RULES
Sorry, which RULE did I miss?
RobertL18C wrote:
the UK is one of the few places you can fly IFR OCAS
Again, maybe a new thread, but could we develop a list of where IFR is and is not permitted in Class G?
SERA.5015 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
(b) Minimum Levels
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:
(1) over high terrain or in mountainous areas, at a level which is at least 600 m (2 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in a), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.
In the scenario you painted you are not complying with the IFR.
