4 ms·

"According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds." This st

by crikli 15y ago

"According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds." This statistic is the aviation equivalent of the "Bill Gates is going to give you $5" email forward. The study was in 1954, not 2004, and the pilots that were tested had zero instrument time (at least three hours are required to get a license now). They were put into Beechcraft Bonanzas, aircraft that none of the test subjects had time in; Bonanzas aren't tough to fly but you definitely have to transition into them, especially if you're not used to planes with more horsepower than a Cessna 172...they get ahead of you way faster. That said, if you're a VFR pilot and you knowingly proceed into Instrument Meteorological Conditions, you're probably in for some unpleasantness.

ra 15y ago
I've never flown a bonanza, but the 'doctor killer' [1] has quite a reputation. [1] http://aviatorcollege.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-is-the-“doctor-killer”-airplane-so-dangerous/ http://aviatorcollege.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-is-the-“d...
js2 15y ago
To your point - http://pastebin.com/Paj07U3f http://pastebin.com/Paj07U3f and http://www.cfidarren.com/r-178dissected.htm http://www.cfidarren.com/r-178dissected.htm
nkurz 15y ago
The link to the paper is given in the comments: http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/JournalPubs/180%20Degree%20Turn.pdf http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/Jour... While you are right that it is from 50 years earlier than stated, it seems like a solid study. No, it's not actually "life expectancy", but I was impressed on how well designed it was. It makes for sobering reading, but the conclusion is actually positive: with only six hours of direct experience training, they could teach people how to make a safe 180 degree turn with a high percentage of success. They explain the choice of the Bonanza, saying it was the most complex plane that a non-professional pilot could be expected to fly. The emphasis of the study was that simple training could save lives, and thus they wanted a high bar. "In sort, the assumption was made that if the subjects, none of whom had soloed a Bonanza, could master the technique in this airplane, they could master it in any single-engine airplane under 3,000 pounds gross weight." And it's not quite true that the pilots had zero instrument time at the time of test. The first lesson included a very small amount of time to familiarize themselves with the instruments, and were given a second try if they lost control within only a few seconds. How much of a difference this is from the current 3 hours, and how far short of the recommended 6, seems worthy of discussion and likely a more modern study.
- crikli 15y ago
  "it seems like a solid study" It is, provided that context is given when statistics from the paper are mentioned...which rarely happens. To fly a Bonanza you have to have a private pilot's license, a high performance endorsement (required to fly anything with HP > 200), and a complex endorsement (required to fly anything with a constant speed prop, flaps, and retractable gear). This takes some time...and good luck getting insurance coverage (the real factor in what you do/don't fly) if you don't have an instrument ticket. Furthermore there's a world of difference between zero or a few minutes of instrument experience and three hours. I don't have any study to back this up but I'm a pilot and can tell you from experience that the first time you go on full instruments it's sheer sensory overload. Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180. Here's another important factor about the study that never gets mentioned: in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system. No pilot is going to take off these instrument in failure, and should they fail in flight most pilots are getting down, now. I know I would be heading to the nearest field if I saw partial failure of both instrument systems. So instead of saying "VFR pilots are toast in 178 seconds if they go into clouds" quotes should read more like, "if you happen to be Dr Sam Beckett and you find you've quantum lept into a Bonanza that has partial instrument system failures and you've flown into a cloud, you better hope Al can jump your ass back out within three minutes."
  - nkurz 15y ago
    Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180. 'Most noninstrument pilots can be placed in one of the three following categories: (1) the noninstrument pilot who knows he could not fly instruments and takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather; (2) the noninstrument pilot who "knows" he could not fly instruments, takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather, but believes his knowledge and experience would enable him, if caught, to fly out of instrument weather; (3) the noninstrument pilot who believes, primarily through ignorance of the problems involved, he could fly through instrument weather.' Are you instrument rated? Have you taken further training beyond the requirements? What's your confidence that you could successfully perform a 180 degree turn out of cloud in the plane that you fly the most? Would you keep your hands on the controls or not? in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system. Again, I think this makes sense in the context of the study. The goal wasn't to simulate failure, rather because those were (at least at the time) not required to be installed. The interesting part to me about the study (I'm not a pilot, but have played with simulators such as XPlane and probably plan to get a license some day when I can afford the time and expense) is that none of the test pilots were able to perform a life saving maneuver when starting, and after 6 hours of direct training all were able to. And yet, oddly, this isn't (to my knowledge) part of the current pilot training. Why not?

by crikli 15y ago

ra 15y ago

I've never flown a bonanza, but the 'doctor killer' [1] has quite a reputation. [1] http://aviatorcollege.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-is-the-“doctor-killer”-airplane-so-dangerous/ http://aviatorcollege.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-is-the-“d...

js2 15y ago

To your point - http://pastebin.com/Paj07U3f http://pastebin.com/Paj07U3f and http://www.cfidarren.com/r-178dissected.htm http://www.cfidarren.com/r-178dissected.htm

nkurz 15y ago

The link to the paper is given in the comments: http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/JournalPubs/180%20Degree%20Turn.pdf http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/Jour... While you are right that it is from 50 years earlier than stated, it seems like a solid study. No, it's not actually "life expectancy", but I was impressed on how well designed it was. It makes for sobering reading, but the conclusion is actually positive: with only six hours of direct experience training, they could teach people how to make a safe 180 degree turn with a high percentage of success. They explain the choice of the Bonanza, saying it was the most complex plane that a non-professional pilot could be expected to fly. The emphasis of the study was that simple training could save lives, and thus they wanted a high bar. "In sort, the assumption was made that if the subjects, none of whom had soloed a Bonanza, could master the technique in this airplane, they could master it in any single-engine airplane under 3,000 pounds gross weight." And it's not quite true that the pilots had zero instrument time at the time of test. The first lesson included a very small amount of time to familiarize themselves with the instruments, and were given a second try if they lost control within only a few seconds. How much of a difference this is from the current 3 hours, and how far short of the recommended 6, seems worthy of discussion and likely a more modern study.

crikli 15y ago
"it seems like a solid study" It is, provided that context is given when statistics from the paper are mentioned...which rarely happens. To fly a Bonanza you have to have a private pilot's license, a high performance endorsement (required to fly anything with HP > 200), and a complex endorsement (required to fly anything with a constant speed prop, flaps, and retractable gear). This takes some time...and good luck getting insurance coverage (the real factor in what you do/don't fly) if you don't have an instrument ticket. Furthermore there's a world of difference between zero or a few minutes of instrument experience and three hours. I don't have any study to back this up but I'm a pilot and can tell you from experience that the first time you go on full instruments it's sheer sensory overload. Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180. Here's another important factor about the study that never gets mentioned: in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system. No pilot is going to take off these instrument in failure, and should they fail in flight most pilots are getting down, now. I know I would be heading to the nearest field if I saw partial failure of both instrument systems. So instead of saying "VFR pilots are toast in 178 seconds if they go into clouds" quotes should read more like, "if you happen to be Dr Sam Beckett and you find you've quantum lept into a Bonanza that has partial instrument system failures and you've flown into a cloud, you better hope Al can jump your ass back out within three minutes."
- nkurz 15y ago
  Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180. 'Most noninstrument pilots can be placed in one of the three following categories: (1) the noninstrument pilot who knows he could not fly instruments and takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather; (2) the noninstrument pilot who "knows" he could not fly instruments, takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather, but believes his knowledge and experience would enable him, if caught, to fly out of instrument weather; (3) the noninstrument pilot who believes, primarily through ignorance of the problems involved, he could fly through instrument weather.' Are you instrument rated? Have you taken further training beyond the requirements? What's your confidence that you could successfully perform a 180 degree turn out of cloud in the plane that you fly the most? Would you keep your hands on the controls or not? in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system. Again, I think this makes sense in the context of the study. The goal wasn't to simulate failure, rather because those were (at least at the time) not required to be installed. The interesting part to me about the study (I'm not a pilot, but have played with simulators such as XPlane and probably plan to get a license some day when I can afford the time and expense) is that none of the test pilots were able to perform a life saving maneuver when starting, and after 6 hours of direct training all were able to. And yet, oddly, this isn't (to my knowledge) part of the current pilot training. Why not?