IIMC Darwin’s Tangled Web By Randy Rowles
Too often we hear of a family on a helicopter departing with a loved one at the controls. Somewhere along the route, they encounter poor weather conditions. A decision is made to press on into the deteriorating weather conditions. The flight ends with a family perishing in what has become a predictable outcome.
The intended consequences of this flight were far different than reality. The pilot did not wake up and decide to kill his or her family in a helicopter crash. Something else happened that outweighed the most basic human trait: to protect your family at all costs. How could a decision to fly outweigh saving your family from such a predictable outcome? This example involves a private flight, but commercial operations are equally at risk.
Such decisions are made not in a singular thought or activity, but in a series of decisions that play out like a video game where the pilot is the avatar. Each of these critical decision points represents a level of play, and the farther you go into the game, the more challenging and mortally defined the ending.
Having spent many years teaching IIMC and experiencing my share of encounters that worked out successfully, I’ve developed a tiered approach of engagement levels that define an IIMC decision tree. There are three levels of engagement: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional. It’s the actions leading up to the event that determine our survival during an IIMC encounter.
Randy Rowles has been an FAA pilot examiner for 20 years for all helicopter certificates and ratings. He holds an FAA Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificate, NAFI Master Flight Instructor designation, and was the 2013 recipient of the HAI Flight Instructor of the Year Award. Rowles is currently the owner of the Helicopter Institute. He can be reached at
randyrowlesdpe@gmail.com
If you have any comments or questions, please let me know at
randyrowlesdpe@gmail.com
88 Jan/Feb 2022
A Level One (behavioral) IIMC encounter is intriguing to me. It’s the cliff where the danger exists. However, since the pilot has no intention of proceeding into worsening conditions, the perception of safety exists. In fact, it’s a Level One weather encounter that has proven to be the most dangerous to your survival. This is where the fatal decision tree begins. Since learning is defined as a change in behavior due to experience, maintaining a healthy IIMC training regimen followed by strict personal minimums would make a sensible solution.
Once the behavior of the individual has been compromised and a continued flight decision is made (Level One), the cognitive phase begins (Level Two). The cognitive phase, to be successful, relies on a thought-based approach gained through experience and use of your senses. This is where pilots reach the point of no return. Many helicopter pilots have no actual experience dealing with such weather conditions, and their senses begin to fail them. It is during this Level Two encounter where the pilot begins to question their decisions and confusion sets in. In many cases, it’s this period of confusion and denial that delays the decision to land.
Once a pilot is fully engaged in weather conditions where visual flight is no longer an option (Level Three), the emotional onset of guilt, denial, and fear often overshadow the pilot’s ability to cope with the conditions. Once engaged with a Level Three IIMC encounter, the data shows you have approximately 56 seconds to live!
The FAA and U.S. Helicopter Safety Team released a video titled “56 Seconds.” It accurately reflects upon each level within the IIMC decision tree and should be viewed by everyone in the industry. Additionally, as a company, we decided to enhance our IIMC training to include heavy use of simulation and in-aircraft IIMC devices such as the ICARUS electronic view-limiting system.
Strong instrument skills are key to safe instrument flight, but IIMC isn’t just another instrument flight. A strong ability to say NO to continued flight in Level One flight conditions will eliminate your entry into the realms of previous Darwin Award recipients.
The data is clear. The information is available. Just don’t do it!
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
