B

Bavafa

Well Known Member
I was on a x-country trip last week and thought to share some experience?

As a relatively new and novice IFR pilot, I have taken some [measured] comfort in the tools that I have in my tool box, those are a great A/P by TT and a great EIFS by GRT and of course the Garmin 430W. So, on my trip to GA, after the first leg to stop for fuel, I was held on the tarmac for a good while to get my clearness and as a result the temps were getting high. 10-15 min later, once I got my clearance and took off and getting established on course, with high density of 7500 and the temps already high, I eased up the climb rate to cool off the CHT this is while the condition was getting marginal VFR. So, I went back to the training and focusing on the instrument mostly this is when I saw a big hill on my EIFS that looked I was not going to clear if kept the same climb rate. I increased my climb rate and still did not look good. First I thought of turning and circling to gain the altitude, but my syntactic vision was showing that a slight turn to the left would easily give me the adequate ground clearance to get pass the hill. So, that is what I did and got passed it with no trouble. Once I was near/top of the hill and could have a closer look, it confirmed what I saw on the EIFS.

This is one situation that scares me much in IFR condition, perhaps more then landing, since I think I may tend to put my guards down a bit and thinking that I am climbing so what could go wrong?!!!!!

Thanks to GRT, it functioned flawlessly the entire trip and back.
 
Cool, you know many many years ago, we would do that same thing with a sectional.

Ahh, technology
 
I don't understand, were you on an IFR clearance or VFR? Did you have a SID or other procedure in place to get you to an MEA or MOCA? Published minimum climb gradient? On vectors with ATC?

Synthetic vision is not a substitute for IFR procedure...just wondering.
 
jferraro17 said:
I don't understand, were you on an IFR clearance or VFR? Did you have a SID or other procedure in place to get you to an MEA or MOCA? Published minimum climb gradient? On vectors with ATC?

Synthetic vision is not a substitute for IFR procedure...just wondering.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't following either...
 
I'm confused. Were you under an IFR clearance at the time? Were you deviating from it? Were you coordinating deviations with ATC?

Charted IFR procedures, if you adhere to them, will keep you clear of terrain. Under VFR, your eyes looking out the window should keep you clear of terrain. Scud running between the hills under less-than-VFR conditions on synthetic vision -- very risky proposition (not to mention illegal).
 
I was on IFR flight plan but no SID and the condition was VFR on the ground, so really didn't think to review the minimums before take off. Checking the minimums later showed I needed 500 per NM to 8100'.
I was not expecting to get in such poor visibility and can't say it became IFR but could not see the hills till I got much much closer (the EIFS that got my attention). I think if I had slowed down and had higher climb rate from the get go, it would have been OK but the way I was going and trying to cool off the CHT, it would not have cleared the hills.
 
Awfully risky "plan" when your pink body was sitting in the airplane closing on that hill. You got lucky.
 
If my "pink body" was in the airplane, and my plan wasn't going to work out, then I would also be thankful for a nice display in front of me that makes me aware that a change in plan is warranted.

Sometimes I think people dog on new technology because they think the solution is a perfect pilot. Those people are welcome to nit pick all they want, I'd rather use all tools available to me to confirm what I'm doing isn't putting anyone in danger regardless if those tools are blessed by the FAA or not.
 
akschu said:
If my "pink body" was in the airplane, and my plan wasn't going to work out, then I would also be thankful for a nice display in front of me that makes me aware that a change in plan is warranted.

Sometimes I think people dog on new technology because they think the solution is a perfect pilot. Those people are welcome to nit pick all they want, I'd rather use all tools available to me to confirm what I'm doing isn't putting anyone in danger regardless if those tools are blessed by the FAA or not.
Click to expand...

I think you just hit the nail right on the head. Synthetic vision, and terrain mapping in general, is a great asset to enhance situational awareness and a possible lifeline in some emergency situations. But what it isn't, or at least shouldn't be, is a crutch for inadequate flight planning or deliberate excessive risk-taking. That's the point that I, and I think several of the other posters, were trying to make. Not criticizing the technology, and not trying to beat up the original poster, but it just wasn't so clear which case this was from the original posting.
 
Not bagging on the new technology at all.

However, there is NO substitute for proper, thorough planning. Re-read some of the things the original poster said.

"...was VFR on the ground" "checking the minimums later showed..." "...needed 550' per nm" "trying to cool off CHT...would not have cleared the hills"

He was not prepared for what he encountered, through his own faulty planning. This is, if I read it correctly, an IFR rated pilot, not a VFR guy who got lost in the clouds.

Make no mistake about it, controlled flight into terrain is what is being discussed here. The "pink body" comment was made to point out that IMC flight is a serious, possibly deadly, endeavor...it is most definitely NOT a video game with a reset button.

No matter what your panel may contain to "save you", why put yourself in a position like this to begin with?
 
jferraro17 said:
No matter what your panel may contain to "save you", why put yourself in a position like this to begin with?
Click to expand...

If you're into reading investigative reports of flight into terrain accidents, you'll see quite a cross section of low time to high time pilots. For numerous reasons, they ended up in the particular "position" of doom. Therefor, synthetic vision is good.................any way you look at it!

I became interested in the whys and wherefores of flight into terrain, because I live in a mountainous area, where it seems to happen year after year. Happily, the trend seems to be slowing.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Bavafa said:
I was on IFR flight plan but no SID and the condition was VFR on the ground, so really didn't think to review the minimums before take off. Checking the minimums later showed I needed 500 per NM to 8100'.
I was not expecting to get in such poor visibility and can't say it became IFR but could not see the hills till I got much much closer (the EIFS that got my attention). I think if I had slowed down and had higher climb rate from the get go, it would have been OK but the way I was going and trying to cool off the CHT, it would not have cleared the hills.
Click to expand...

So if I do the calculations correctly based on a climb airspeed of say between110 kts and 150 kts... your climb would have to be between about 900 and 1250 fpm To 8100 ft... sounds a little marginal to expect to climb continuously at around 1000 fpm to clear terrain.... Please be carefull!

Victor
 
ATC has been known to vector pilots into terrain, and even an experienced pilot might think their vectors sound reasonable. If you are an IFR flyer and have an opportunity to add SV, or something like a 496 with terrain warnings, you should do so. Either one will work; the SV is easier to interpret (or should I say requires NO interpretation?).
 
Several Thoughts

breister said:
ATC has been known to vector pilots into terrain, and even an experienced pilot might think their vectors sound reasonable. If you are an IFR flyer and have an opportunity to add SV, or something like a 496 with terrain warnings, you should do so. Either one will work; the SV is easier to interpret (or should I say requires NO interpretation?).
Click to expand...

SV and other equipment i.e. G-496, are great tools and if you have them, use them to their fullest capabilities!

It appears that there were several issues that put this flight in jeopardy.
1. He stated that he sat on the ramp awaiting clearance (or possibly release) for 15+ minutes, with high ambient temps. There is no good reason to keep the engine running with such low cooling airflow for this long. Shut down unnecessary equipment, and leave the engine shutdown until your clearance is received, or you are released. There is plenty of time to get to the runway before your void time.
2. When flying under an IFR flightplan, it does not matter if the actual WX is CAVOK or 0/0. You must comply with SID or standard departure as published! Never rely on ground visibility for obstruction clearance.

Mr. Adamson stated that his data shows that CFIT is trending downward. I certainly hope that it is due to increased awareness brought on by diligence and better inflight information. I have to admit that I was wondering if the herd was just being thinned?
 
Last edited:
It looks like lack of enough detail in the original post has created more confusion that was intended.

I am treating this as a lesson learned for myself, based on the feedbacks here and the realities on the ground and those are:

- Don't put your guards down when conditions are not really bad and follow the rules to the safest and tightest possible. In general (VFR or IFR), I climb as fast as possible while try to pay attention to the engine, so I am not sure what I would do if I was in exact situation again (probably the same unless visibility was full IFR)

- Tools are great but are not a substitute for experience and training…however while I admit I am novice and in need of more "real IFR" experience I am thankful to have them and believe they do help in helping me to be more safe and get those "real time" experience.

As for mistakes… so far I believe my mistake was lack of attention to the departure minimums and I believe that was mostly due to the overall condition not being IFR when departed.

I appreciate those constructive feedback.
 
Last edited:
IMC and IFR are two diff things, if you are flying out on a clearance, you will have departure procedures regardless.....until you pickup ATC and then you will go along with their instruction, or fallback to your filed plan

either way, prevailing VMC does not mean you ignore takeoff procedures, especially with terrain ahead......

sounds like the lesson was learned so no point in beating a dead horse, glad that you and your airplane are here to share with the rest of us
 
Man the second I read this post I knew the poster was in for a flaming! I would guess (hope) the poster was just excited about how well his high dollar equipment performed and maybe exaggerated the actual conditions (visibility) in order to demonstrate what a value the SV was. We have all been guilty of telling a fish story every now and then. Why ruin a good story for lack of a few facts! Take it easy on the guy.
 
I love how this works

These type of posts on VAF forums work allot like the performance group I'm in. I believe we need to hold each other accountable for our actions and doing so there will be allot of people that learn from it, i know i have.
 
Guys, before you flame him, take a look a couple of posts up where the OP admitted that he made some mistakes. I hope that we don't make VAF a place where folks think that posting their experiences is the biggest mistake they can make, and go away!
 
My Apologies?

Ironflight said:
Guys, before you flame him, take a look a couple of posts up where the OP admitted that he made some mistakes. I hope that we don't make VAF a place where folks think that posting their experiences is the biggest mistake they can make, and go away!
Click to expand...

While writing my reply, it was not my intention to "flame" the OP in anyway, shape or form. Keeping in mind all the less than well thought out mistake that I have made, and still do. I am living proof that God watches over fools and young aviators trying to build flight time!

The OP seems like a very conscientious individual, and I am sure that he will know that IFR charts and procedures cold in the near future.
 
My 2 cents

I would like to have the S/V capacity in my plane, but there is the little manner of $$$ standing in the way.

As to why to have it, I liken it to having a winch on my Jeep.

I do not go out wheelin looking for a need to use the winch, but I am sure glad it is there if I happen to get myself into a situation where it is needed.

S/V is a tool, and like most any tool, it needs to be used correctly.
 
Performance group

celstar said:
These type of posts on VAF forums work allot like the performance group I'm in. I believe we need to hold each other accountable for our actions and doing so there will be allot of people that learn from it, i know i have.
Click to expand...
Hi David, I would really like to hear more about this group and how it works. I agree that having an honest analysis of our performance makes us better, but apart from competition, it can be difficult to find.
 
Ironflight said:
Guys, before you flame him, take a look a couple of posts up where the OP admitted that he made some mistakes. I hope that we don't make VAF a place where folks think that posting their experiences is the biggest mistake they can make, and go away!
Click to expand...

Ditto. If you wish to point out "Things that could have been done better" in a constructive way, that is both polite and considerate, then do so. Piling on simply encourages people to hide their mistakes - and may put US at fault for a future accident.

Edit: The converse is to be careful not to flame those offering advice - they may simply have not written as well as they might. Reference my words above, which although I in no way intended such on second reading I can see that someone may have mis-interpreted as criticism of someone else's feedback - it was not, and was not directed at anyone. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.