Unfortunately this type of accident, typically with a 70% fatality rate, continues to persist, especially in our northern latitudes.
While an IMC or IR(R) rating is an important safety contributor, in most GA private operations the pilot may not have the rating, or may not be current. Hence I tend to prefer the precautionary landing, especially in light of the hard work of the Strasser scheme in the UK.
This article is quite helpful.
http://safemagazine.org/article/teaching-vmc-imc-right-and-wrong/
I’m not quite sure I agree it’s a good article.
In my view, any exit strategy for a non instrument rated pilot that inadvertently enters IMC bears risks.
The article suggests that the 180-degree turn is dangerous and should be avoided (yet fails to actually argue why, apart from the Cirrus example) and that climbing and talking to ATC will save you. What about icing (that the VFR pilot has not much knowledge of and esp. in this situation and under pressure might not even CONSIDER)? What about terrain ahead (montains!).
This entire thing is so situation dependent and I don’t like how the article presents the climb as the one salvific solution that it is not.
I’ve had an IMC encounter over the Austrian Alps with no radio contact. I certainly did not consider to climb further (anyway, I was already at max in terms of oxygen etc.) and a slow and calm 180 (it felt like it would never end, to be honest…) turn back to the only place i KNEW that had VMC and no terrain IMHO was the right thing to do in that situation.
Nobody really forces you to fly a standard turn with 26 degress of bank if it scares you – and you do not even have to fly 180 kts in the turn. Pull back on that black lever and the airplane will slow down. Also: the average SR22 and all of the newer ones will have a very good autopilot that can precisely fly every kind of turn wanted.
Not an interesting article IMHO.
I think it was a nice article, with an excellent point. “Rule of primacy” – I first flew in gliders, and regarding clouds there was only one rule: Stay out! If you got caught, there was also only one rule, stay level and pull speed brake. Maybe this is why I have no interest in IFR ? 
Today there is a special cloud rating for gliders apparently, but I don’t know the details.
I don’t know exactly what I mean about this general issue anymore. In my little one seat Onex there will be at least two GPS, there will be full internet connection and wifi, I have mobile connection, 3D solid state gyros and 3D accelerometers, 3D map with synthetic vision, Mode S transponder, radio. This is only bare bones compared with most other experimentals (RV and Lancair for instance with double or triple set of glass, autopilots, ADF, VOR, even full Garmin GPS/IFR). It is also bare bones compared with most microlight (they also have autopilots and triple glass). This is basic standard instruments in the non certified world. A standard modern equipped experimental or microlight is perfectly capably of navigating into valleys and fjords in darkness and fog without any external references whatsoever. I wonder how many of the fatal VFR into IMC had these kind of instruments available (and knew how to use them). I would guess none. It would be interesting to see statistics though.
At the same time I also agree that precautionary landing is the correct action, maybe due to the “rule of primacy”. But I cannot help reaching the conclusion that technology has gone way past the time where the esoteric and regulation-based IFR is the only way of getting out of IMC alive.
Le Sving many thanks, lots of interesting points. Especially on the availability of technology which could reduce the problem.
I think the article is useful mainly in discussing whether the mandatory three hours of hood time, or none in the case of EASA where you only have to demonstrate a 180 o turn under the hood for your skill test, is helping reduce this persistent problem.
Knowing the big picture and understanding where VMC conditions are, and how to head towards good VMC, is perhaps a skill which the qualifying cross country might not address.
The last words spoken by the pilot of the aircraft that crashed near Popham recently were apparently, “I’ve got synthetic vision”…………………..
hence precautionary landing. But is that popham incident correct or just a myth? Synthetic vision may not be of much help if you never have used it.
Pull back on that black lever and the airplane will slow down
It will not slow down unless the pilot pulls back on the stick and re-trims or the autopilot does that for him/her. Instead it will descend.
I therefore think that a standard turn back without changing any power setting (in slow airplanes. 17° bank may suffice) is the better option, although the pilot will need to raise the nose some to maintain altitude.
Uh, my reply was not meant to be takes as basic flight instruction ;-)
In any modern airplane I’d recommend using the autopilot for the turn. But you are right: If the pilot is very inexperienced changing the configuration and retrimming the airplane might be more dangerous than simply fly a standard turn back.
As an aside, would not the increasing % of modern aircraft (i.e. having an autopilot) reduce the fatality numbers resulting from an unplanned entry into IMC?
What I am getting at is that most pilots who have an AP will use it, especially on sidestick aircraft (that info comes to me directly from the pilots of the said aircraft, not something I have made up on the spot ) and IMHO most pilots entering IMC while using the AP will just continue the flight in IMC.
The last thing I would do is disconnect the AP and hand-fly a 180, firstly because using the AP is much safer and secondly because everybody is crap at hand flying in the moments immediately following an AP disconnect, especially if under pressure due to something else. In IR tests, where the AP is permitted for say the enroute section, it is a very strong advice to hand fly for say 10-20nm before hand-flying flying the approach.
