I think a bigger risk in overwater crossing for the non-IR rated PPL is not ditching but spatial disorientation. Moderate visibility or a flat cloud ceiling over land isn’t particularly challenging, but over sea (and I’ve experienced this many times) it can result in a gray sea blending into a gray sky and no visual reference at all (and in those conditions it’s easy to end up flying into a cloud deck without seeing it till you’re actually in it).
I’ve even had the milk bowl effect on a sunny day when vis was reported as 9999 on the METAR (in that case all you could see out the window was a uniform milky shade out the window, even from 5000 feet, and with little wind the sea was entirely featureless).
Fuji_Abound wrote:
but then may not be able to accept a further climb.
I think you have to take a decision on what is the safest thing to do in the circumstances. But of course, with a destination like the Channel Islands if you have a attitude to low over-water flying like mine then it becomes a CAVOK project for VFR-only PPLs.
In the flying club environment I started out in, PPLs were told a lot about the dangers of bad weather and scud running. The mantra “maintain VMC at all costs” was aggressively promoted. I became distinctly unpopular because I thought for myself and came to the conclusion that if the weather was crud then “maintain MSA at all costs” was more important.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I agree – I rather meant that you wouldnt be able to accept the climb without an IR/IRR or a pop up clearance within the zone, so would you then continue below the base or not go at all?
If I did not have any instrument qualification at all then I don’t think I’d cross to the Channel Islands unless there was no cloud ceiling below about 5,000ft. It doesn’t have to be strictly CAVOK, because obviously one can climb/descend through FEW or SCT quite easily while maintaining VMC. Once you get to BKN I think it requires a lucky hole in the right place or an off-track routing to get down. I saw this in France the other week – it felt a touch unusual to be thinking to myself “I have to turn a bit and go down through the gap, because I am not legal to pass through that bit of cloud.”
I got the IMCr quite soon after the PPL, mainly because I realised that it massively increased the number of flyable days in the UK. Plus it is some more serious training where you are held to higher standards (I made it clear to my IMCr instructor that I wanted to be held to IR standards of accuracy) and it really improves your skills. It makes you a much better VFR pilot, as well as giving you some instrument capability.
Ah ok, I actually meant going back to your original scenario on departure? If you were on an IFR departure of course the answer would be the same, but if not, then you accept an initial clearance not above 2,500 VFR, but then may not be able to accept a further climb.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Of course this would prevent you accepting a higher clearance in the zone if you agreed to maintain VMC.
Sorry I missed this bit. When approaching the Channel Islands I always request IFR into the zone and vectors for the ILS – that solves the VMC problem and the altitude problem in one hit. I have never had an approach like this where they have forced me down the platform altitude early, the descent to 2,000ft has always been “when ready”.
I agree – I rather meant that you wouldnt be able to accept the climb without an IR/IRR or a pop up clearance within the zone, so would you then continue below the base or not go at all?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
but a climb is not possible without going IMC
As long as it is not convective or icing, I’d just climb into IMC. The preference would be to get to VMC on top, but if it wasn’t possible then I’d cruise in IMC. It is not like the crossing is so long as to make cruising in IMC too arduous.
Assuming not convective or icing, then I’d rather FL70 in IMC than <3,000ft in VMC when crossing to the Channel Islands.
Over sea.
I was just interested in how your risk profile would be influenced by the weather, and, of course, that is fine. We all know of days when flying conditions are very good below 3,000 feet, but a climb is not possible without going IMC, and some would press on in these circumstances. Of course this would prevent you accepting a higher clearance in the zone if you agreed to maintain VMC.
Oh of course I recognise the smile, but as you know, not all twins take you to the crash, I am happy on one certainly over the 100 mile crossing if needs must. Well happy being a relative term.
Sorry Fuji I’m not sure of your question, 3,000 foot base over land or sea? I don’t have an IR, just and IR(R).
Over sea, in a single, I probably just wouldn’t fly it. But it might depend on how far the crossing was, how many I had on board, etc. I might do Dover-Calais at 3,000 feet in summer and if just one or two-up. But I wouldn’t cross from the Isle of Wight to the Channel Islands at that level.
A twin is totally different, obviously. You have a second engine to guide you to your ditching ;-)
Over land, well in the PA-17 most flying is below 3,000 feet – I am fine with that – as one can stick it down on a football pitch. In the TB10, I don’t really like it that low for any length of time. So much so that after the impromtu EuroGA meet at LFAT yesterday, I changed my route a bit on the way back to avoid an extended time below the 2,500 portion of the LTMA. It just isn’t very nice down there, and it’s usually bumpy.
Edited to add, also under the 2,500ft LTMA in bumpy conditions without an autopilot…… one is a moment of inattention away from a vertical CAS bust.
Graham – am I am not being facetious, because I accept your comments, but if the base was 3,000 feet and you didnt have an instrument rating what would you do?
It is interesting, because having been there just a few days ago, I did the whole route at 1,900 feet. Why? Well I could well have climbed through, but one of the delights of a twin is I am sometimes happy to enjoy the view (which was great), but I recall thinking I wouldnt have done that in a single, even if in years past I would and did.
