Most VFR flights are done below MVA.
The real question here is did the pilot have good visibility at 1500’ or was it marginal VMC, and was it too dark to see obstacles/terrain. If it was good VMC and bright enough then it’s just a regular VFR flight, and they should be easily able to make it to a nearby airport.
If it’s too dark or misty, then the choice is tougher.
I would never descent to from a safe IFR altitude to 1500 ft below the MSA just to get visual in case of vertigo — the risks of CFIT are just too great. But in this scenario, the pilot lost control and regained it in VMC 1500 ft below the MSA. When he started climbing again and got into IMC, vertigo returned. In this situation the aircraft was only some hundred feet above the cloud base and the pilot knew that safe flight below clouds was possible, so yes, quickly returning to VMC was indeed the prudent choice.
MSA does not equal MVA…
Indeed not, but that doesn’t change the argument, does it?
EASA only requires recovery from unusual attitudes on the IR check ride (plus some turns to a compass heading), however the USA requires this and flying the aircraft on partial panel to a successful approach to minima. A more useful standard in my opinion than gold plated NDB holds.
Vertigo is the additional factor in this scenario and would agree with Airborne Again that if VMC is possible, on the last minutes of daylight I would declare an emergency and divert to the nearest airport. Having a post it to cover the failed AI would be helpful to control vertigo.
In the absence of vertigo would choose to stay in the IFR system and declare an emergency.
In the absence of vertigo would choose to stay in the IFR system and declare an emergency.
Where is the emergency when there is no vertigo in this case? The only problem is the disorientation as just the autopilot is INOP. In benign IMC (i.e. not convective), a non working autopilot might be something worth reporting to ATC to point to the increased workload but by no means anything close to an emergency.
Having a post it to cover the failed AI would be helpful to control vertigo.
The way I understood it, the AI didn’t fail. There was a trim runaway and a sudden pitch up when the A/P disconnected. Then the pilot lost control due to vertigo and didn’t recover until 1500 ft in VMC.
achimha the video implies that the AI failed, or there was some kind of vacuum failure – although it is not stated. The AI is shown as tumbled.
It has an HSI which might be slaved, so not affected by the vacuum failure.
In IMC I would treat a vacuum failure as an emergency. This may result in ATC and myself having to file an MOR, but no harm done although the CAA may want to check some maintenance records and my licence, as a result.
No, the AI was fine, the aircraft was just in an unusual attitude. The only technical problem was the autopilot malfunction with the trim runaway.
however the USA requires this and flying the aircraft on partial panel to a successful approach to minima.
Also required during the FAA PPL checkride, minus the approach, of course.
