It is difficult imagining how a fellow could spend hundreds of hours building an RV-8, then take off with almost no fuel in the tanks! 

Equally difficult to imagine is how a sudden engine failure over an airport in this light single was not handled as a routine, off-field landing.

But the unimaginable sometimes happens!

Such was the case last August in Fort Collins, Colorado.  The RV-8 pilot and his father-in-law took off for what should have been a routine flight.  There were no witnesses to the pilot's pre-flight check.  Witnesses, however, did observe the pilot take off, make a steep climb, then roll over into a steep, banking turn and impact the ground.

Another witness reported as follows:

The two "gotchas" got him!

There are certain facts in aviation that cannot be argued.  The first is, powered aircraft cannot remain aloft long without fuel.  Second, a wing will stall when it exceeds its critical angle of attack regardless of airspeed.

Investigators at the scene of this fatal accident found the fuel selector valve on the left tank and the left fuel tank was empty. The right fuel tank contained approximately "one inch" of fuel.  

This, alone, is evidence of something seriously amiss in the pilot's pre-flight planning.  What possible reason or justification would any pilot have for taking off without checking the fuel both by a visual check of the tanks and a quick glance at the fuel gauges.

The second "gotcha" is a bit more difficult to explain!

Witness statements made it clear that the pilot was attempting an immediate return to the airport when the engine failed.  He pitched up likely to maintain altitude, stalled in a possibly uncoordinated fashion, then began what could have been the first turn of a spin.

The temptation to return to the airport when experiencing an engine failure on takeoff is powerful.  It is likely even more powerful when the airplane is the pilot's "pride and joy."  Months or years of hard work building the aircraft suddenly flash through the pilot's mind as he vainly fights all of the aerodynamic forces against him.

In this case, a simple off-field landing was likely this pilot's only option.  An open field, a highway, even a heavily wooded area would be a better risk than an attempted low-altitude power-off 180 degree turn back to the runway.

Pilots with spin training understand the risks of tight maneuvering.

There is no winning the spin training argument with pilots who have never undergone spin training!  Opponents to spin training for GA pilots insist that since low altitude spins are essentially non-recoverable, why bother undergoing spin training?

This "head in the sand" (sorry, no pun) argument is largely responsible for far too many fatal GA accidents.  In truth, a pilot with spin training is innately aware of the flight conditions that result in spins.  With such training, he or she would never unintentionally allow or enter a flight attitude (uncoordinated stall) to occur at any altitude.

A pilot with spin training develops a kinesthetic awareness of yaw where her body can detect nearly imperceptible slipping and skidding motions with the airplane.  You can blindfold such pilots and they can tell you precisely where the ball is in the inclinometer at any point in a turn.

A lesson learned in blood

Here is yet another tragic accident that was paid in blood.  There is NEVER any justification for taking off in an airplane without first checking the fuel load.  Second, any stalled, uncoordinated wing will spin.  This is a simple aerodynamic fact of life.  If a stall results from any flight maneuver, keep the ball centered!  No spin can possibly result.

NTSB Probable Cause determination

Here is what the NTSB investigators included about this tragic accident:

Every primary pilot knows the difference between Vx and Vy, right?  Below is a reminder:

The practical side of Vx and Vy

All V speeds are calculated at maximum gross weight at mean sea level.  As the airplane climbs higher, Vx speed increases and Vy speed decreases.  When these two speeds eventually come together, the airplane has reached its absolute ceiling.

Airspeed is primary for climb!

Instrument pilots know that the airspeed indicator is the primary gauge for climbs.  Climb at too high an airspeed in IFR conditions, you may not clear obstacles along the departure path.  Climb too slow, you might stall.

So what airspeed should I be climbing at?

The simple rule of thumb I use with students is to ALWAYS climb at your airplane's Vx speed through the first 50 feet of altitude (or at least until you clear the obstacles along your departure path).

Once clear of the obstacles, lower the nose and continue the climb at Vy speed until reaching pattern altitude.  Then, depending upon the aircraft, lower the nose again and cruise climb the rest of the way up at Vy plus 10 or 15 knots IAS. 

Please note:  Cylinder head temperature control becomes the major speed determining factor in most high performance piston airplanes while in the climb.   

Vx and Vy speeds, like all your airplane's V speeds are critically important.  We should not only memorize these speeds, we should know their purpose and how they are calculated.

An Over the Airwaves e-mail is sent to all OTA readers every other Sunday morning.  This message contains an active hyperlink to the latest issue.  

Please be sure that your spam blocker recognizes and allows this e-mail through its filtering system.  Our system will make three attempts to deliver this OTA message to your email address.  If it fails on the third attempt, your email address will automatically be deleted from our list of OTA readers!

If you are not receiving your bi-weekly OTA email every other Sunday morning, click HERE and re-register for your free subscription.  Also, if you change your email address, please send us an email from your OLD address and type the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.  This will assist us in keeping our email addresses up to date.

I was particularly pleased to receive a message from a veteran airline pilot reader saying that he agreed with 90 percent of what is typically written in Over the Airwaves. 

In expressing his views, the veteran pilot voiced concern, however, with three specific points.  Believing that other readers may have the same concerns, perhaps a clarification is in order.  Below are those concerns.

The reader made the point that becoming a flight instructor is the route many aspiring professional pilots take in building time and experience for careers in aviation.  Sure, he said, it would be better if all CFIs were high time veterans, but the reality is that this is the only route future professional pilots can take to acquire the necessary logbook hours.  And many of these new CFIs are very good at it.

Reply: 

The problem is not inexperienced CFIs.  We all had be to begin somewhere.  Instead, the problem occurs when the FAA certifies inexperienced pilots with barely more than 50 hours total solo time as flight instructors.  Just out of the cradle themselves, these neophyte pilots lack any meaningful, real-world experience required for effective flight training.

Frankly, flight schools that send their CFI candidates with only 50 hours total solo time over to the FAA for a checkride should be ashamed of themselves, professionally and ethically!

As for the FAA, they too should refrain from passing CFI candidates with only 50 hours of solo time unless such candidates demonstrate exceptional understanding of the vagaries of flight and the aeronautical decision making and risk management skills necessary to survive the most challenging of all possible flight conditions.

While the reader makes a good point, the system itself is seriously flawed for a number of reasons.   If the inexperienced CFI received his or her training from an equally inexperienced CFI, very little aeronautical decision making skills are learned.  Mistakes and bad habits perpetuate themselves into future generations of pilots.  While this certainly does not apply to all CFIs, there are enough of us out there who fall in this category to seriously weaken the flight training process.

There are many ways newly minted private pilots can acquire the necessary PIC experience to qualify for whatever flying jobs they want.  They DO NOT have to go the CFI route to acquire this experience.   They can pull banners, dust crops, fly traffic shows, conduct scenic flights, volunteer as an Angel pilot, or provide demo flights for aircraft dealers.  They can even join a flying club and take lots of vacation or business flights.  Some enterprising pilots might even purchase all or a share in an airplane and simply go out and fly a lot!

Meet Jeff Carrick, CFI of Buffalo, NY.  Before becoming a CFI, Jeff logged over 800 PIC hours in a two year period flying low and slow in a C-206 for the local A.M. radio traffic show.  This was year-around flying in likely the most challenging weather in North America. 

Does Jeff have any wisdom to share with his flight students regarding the hazards of low level maneuvering, the risks associated with marginal VFR weather, and the dangers of icing and lake effect snow?  You bet!!

Unfortunately, the general public has little knowledge regarding the differences between flight instructors like Jeff and the neophyte instructors pumped out of flight training mills that slip through the cracks with barely enough solo hours to keep their wings level in turbulent skies.  Jeff's flight students were the lucky ones!

Next, placing flight instruction at the bottom of the aviation career ladder diminishes its importance.   Rather than attracting career-oriented, professional CFIs, its lowly position in the food chain limits its monetary rewards and other benefits necessary to attract and retain career CFIs having genuine real-world experience.

Lastly, there is something fundamentally (even ethically) wrong with using the general public as cannon-fodder for aspiring professional pilots.  This is akin to using animals in a medical school comparative anatomy class to prepare physicians to treat humans.  One has to wonder!

 Issue #2 - Bob, you do a great deal of cross-country training . . . isn't there a lot of droning along with little instructional value?

Reply:

Here in the northeast U.S. we have public use airports and grass strips every 15 to 20 miles or so in all directions.  I can plan a cross-country trip between Buffalo and Albany, 210 miles to the east.  In the process, we land and take off at 10 to 12 airports along the way, both paved and grass.  

We cover traffic pattern procedures, cross-wind landings, short and soft field operations, emergency procedures, diversions, stalls and spins, special use airspace, lots of radio work, pilotage, dead-reckoning, radio navigation and, of course, cross-country planning. 

Every leg is different, the weather and wind are constantly changing, runway conditions are never the same.  It is the best scenario-based training possible! Aside from the several breaks we take for lunch, bathroom stops, and sight-seeing, there is no non-instructional "droning along.

Compare the training effectiveness of this kind of training with oft-repeated circuits around the home and nearby airports!   Admittedly, close order landing and take-off drills have merit to the very new pilot.  Once beyond that stage, however, cross-country training is the only way to go!

Most importantly, cross-country training is fun;  it keeps the student pilot interested;  and CFIs find it much more enjoyable than rote pattern work.

 Issue #3 - You encourage single engine IFR flight . . . Do you really have a back door?

The reader posses a commonly asked question regarding the safety merits of a twin over a single.   Good question!

There is no way I am going to get suckered into that debate!  Let's just say that the accident data does not support the safety advantage of a twin over a single.  Twins are more challenging to fly, less forgiving of error, and a virtual handful of trouble in the hands of a non-proficient, non-current multi-engine rated pilot.

As far as accident causes are concerned, aircraft mechanical/maintenance problems contribute to only 15% or so of all accidents.  Engine failure, alone, is only a portion of that 15%.  According to best estimates, the average pilot spends less than 10% of his total flying hours in actual IFR conditions.

So, the chances of suffering a catastrophic engine failure while in actual IFR conditions is quite remote.  Nonetheless, the risk is there. 

Yes, operating in IMC while down low on an instrument approach is a backdoor-less condition.  It is a phase of flight that none of us wish to spend much time in.  Fortunately, in the grand scheme theme of things, the percentage of time there is very small.  

In summary, thanks go to OTA reader Hal Ewing of Oshkosh, Wisconsin for asking these probing questions.  Hal recently retired as a B-747, DC-10, and A300/310 driver and is currently flying a Citation 5, Meridian, and a Beech 18.

Such a needless loss!  Two commercially rated pilots, one with 500 hours in type, apparently succumbed to the temptation to make an engine-out, 240 degree return to the runway following engine failure on takeoff.

This fatal accident occurred last week at the Somerset County Airport in Pennsylvania.  They were delivering a Lancair IV to its new owner.  Conditions at the airport at the time of the crash were good VFR.

Here's what witnesses had to say:

Okay . . . so the NTSB has not issued its final report, but witness statements leave little doubt that the pilots were attempting a return to the airport shortly after takeoff.

A high pitch angle, slow speed, coupled with a steep and likely yawed turn are the three ingredients in every stall/spin scenario.  When this combination of factors occurs close to the ground, the scenario is unrecoverable.  Eliminate any one of these factors, no airplane will spin!!

More evidence to restore spin training to the private pilot curriculum!!

There are many opponents to spin training at the private pilot level.  Opponents say that since most stall/spin accidents occur close to the ground and are therefore not recoverable, why bother restoring spin/training to the private pilot curriculum.

Supporters to restoring spin training to the private curriculum, this writer included, vigorously argue that anybody with spin training would never permit the combination of factors experienced in the fatal crash described above to occur in the first place! 

Without spin training, the hapless pilot is insensitive to the spin-risks of these combination of factors.  Instead, these same hapless pilots simply yank and bank their way back to the runway with predictable tragic consequences.

The old "burden on the pilot" argument re-appears!

Major opponents to spin training include the very big membership organizations most private pilots belong to.  These organizations argue that "spin training places an excessive training burden on pilots that cannot be justified on the basis of proven outcomes."

Since it is inherently difficult to design a research protocol to assess spin training outcomes that conforms to the rigors of scientific study, the FAA yields to the pilot burden argument and exempts spin training for any rating below CFI.  Shame, shame, FAA!

One wonders how many more stall/spin accidents we must record before this issue is again examined?

Do yourself a favor - GET SPIN TRAINING!

I require that each of my students be able to safely perform a 360 degree overhead power-off landing on the first 1/3rd of the runway.   In performing this maneuver, I see many, many potential spin scenarios emerging. 

I also see this many times when a high time pilot comes to me for a BFR or IPC.  When demonstrating the 360 degree maneuver, most of these pilots allow the airplane to become so deeply yawed that I have to apply corrective rudder to save the day!  Pretty scary, huh?

The best defense against an inadvertent stall/spin is to become spin proficient through qualified instruction.  Hire a spin proficient CFI and rent a spin certified training aircraft.  There are lots of such aircraft around.  Or, sign up for an entry-level aerobatics or unusual attitude recovery course.   Either way, every pilot should log spin training every year.

Remember, most training aircraft are very spin resistant.  This is not the case with heavier aircraft and with the newer, glass composite airframes found in the Cirrus and Columbia line.  Things happen much more quickly in these aircraft.

Do yourself a favor and become spin proficient!!

It was not a pretty sight.  One of my own instrument student graduates was groping his way through the instrument approach procedure in solid IFR conditions like a blind-folded six year old at a "pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey" party!

He was painfully behind the approach.  His approach plate briefing was virtually non-existent.  The coup de grace came when ATC vectored him on to the final approach course.  Both VOR heads displayed localizer and glideslope flags.  

Ignoring the flags, he continued to maneuver in a vain attempt to center non-responding needles.  His error, though he did not know it at the time, was that he had incorrectly dialed in the initial approach fix (IAF) VOR frequency displayed on the IAP plan view instead of the published localizer frequency.  Checking the Morse identifier, he heard clear but incorrect dots and dashes.

I suggested he do something.  He turned and looked at me with the same blank stare of a deer looking into the headlights.  Stunned and motionless, he apparently resigned himself to the fact that he was totally lost on the approach. 

Not wishing to wander any further from our assigned course and altitude, I pressed the mike button and said, "Erie Approach, Nxxxx, my guy is desperately lost on the approach.  Request vectors for another try!"

Rather than ragging on this pilot for a miserably botched approach, I simply turned around, pulled his logbook out of his flight bag, and checked to see when he last flew an instrument approach procedure. 

The logbook instantly revealed the problem.  He had not flown one single instrument approach since passing his instrument checkride five months earlier!  His instrument skills had deteriorated to an unspeakable level.  It would require weeks of dual to bring him back up to an acceptable level of proficiency!

The instrument rating is frequently acknowledged to be the most difficult of all pilot ratings.  The knowledge and mental discipline required to pass the instrument checkride comes from months of dedicated study and practice.

The big day finally comes.  The anxious student pours his or her heart and soul into the instrument check ride.  All of that hard work is rewarded with the receipt of a WHITE piece of paper given to him by the DPE. 

Wow!  That was hard, but now I am instrument rated pilot.  The feeling is good.

From that moment forward, whatever instrument skills any of us demonstrated on the checkride begin to slowly but steadily diminish -  unless we keep them sharp by frequent, dedicated practice.   This is something my student apparently failed to do.  Now he has to start all over again!

There is no human skill more perishable than being able to pilot an airplane solely by reference to instruments down to minimums.  None, nada, nothing.   This is one skill that we use or lose . . . in a matter of weeks, not months . . . .weeks!

If you are an instrument rated pilot and have not flown in the clag within the last few weeks or so, get out and practice or be ready to lose those hard earned skills!

If you have not executed an instrument approach to minimums in the past 30 days, you are NOT current.  Any subsequent effort to do this without recurrent training and practice is, well . . . risky.  You may get away with it, then again, you might not.  Your call!  Do you feel lucky (with apologies to Clint Eastwood)?

If you are not instrument current per the previous paragraph, arrange to get out with an experienced CFII the very next time you can find weather at instrument minimums. 

Remember, the FAA's definition of instrument currency per FAR 61.57 (six approaches, course interceptions, and holding every six months) is a cruel hoax.  Don't believe it, even for a minute!

The fact that the FAA permits us to meet this requirement in a stationary flight simulator is ludicrous.  No, it is absurdly dangerous!  They apparently forgot the spilled blood.

The accident data is clear and undisputed.  Having an instrument rating without the necessary currency and/or proficiency is the same as not having an instrument rating at all (from a fatal accident perspective)!

Rather than dreading the arrival of low ceilings, poor visibility, and rainy weather, embrace such conditions as wonderful learning opportunities.   Seize those days and go out and practice!

There is nothing short of an $8 million airline-type simulator that can replicate the ride down a turbulent glideslope in a real airplane to a waiting 200' ceiling and 1/4 mile visibility below. Nothing!

And don't bank on never being caught in these conditions.  Any experienced instrument pilot will tell you that ceiling and visibility can drop, unpredictably, to 200' and 1/4 mile visibility in minutes.  Stuff happens, proficient pilots respond accordingly.  Non-proficient instrument pilots . . . die.  Read the accident data!

It was bound to come to this . . . multiple approaches to the same runway using the same type of guidance but with differing technologies to make them work.   The problem is, how do you name the various approach procedures?

Solution:

When two or more straight-in approaches with the same type of guidance exist for the same runway, a letter suffix is added to the title of the approach so that it can be more easily identified. These approach charts start with the letter Z and continue in
reverse alphabetical order.

For example, consider the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 25 and RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 25 approaches at the Jamestown/Chautauqua County Airport. [See figures below].

These two approaches to the same runway are slightly different.  One approach is for airplanes equipped with LNAV capability only.  The other is for VNAV equipped aircraft.  Different decision altitudes (DAs) apply.

The designation of two area navigation (RNAV) procedures to the same runway can occur when it is desirable to accommodate panel mounted global positioning system (GPS) receivers and flight management systems (FMSs), both with and without VNAV.

This convention also eliminates any confusion with approach procedures labeled A and B, where only circling minimums are published. 

It is also important to note that only one of each type of approach for a runway, including ILS, VHF, VOR, NDB, etc., can be coded into a database.

A colleague C-210 owner/pilot, Gordon Kent from Buffalo, NY mentioned to me recently that he would soon be flying over to the Chicago area and asked if I could recommend a close-in airport for him to use.  

Without hesitation I said, "Go into O'Hare.  You'll enjoy the experience!"

He laughed out loud, saying that I had to be nuts.  "They'll eat me alive," he said!

"Au contraire," I said to my friend.  "I've been in there numerous times with my 210.  They will consider you a novelty and will provide you first class service!"

And so he did!

Shortly after Gordy's return, I asked him how he made out.  "You were absolutely right, Bob!  Flying into O'Hare was one of the highlights of my flying career.  The controllers were great."

Going into O'Hare or any large airport is surprisingly affordable, but check ahead!

The current landing fee at O'Hare for a C-210 (single engine) is $14.00.  There is a $14 handling fee charged by the FBO (Signature Aviation), but this is waived with a seven gallon fuel purchase ($4.90/gal).  And thanks to the TSA folks, there is also a $30 security fee!

Click on the pre-flight planning link located in the Over the Airwaves top banner section for specific airport information including telephone numbers to all airport FBOs.

FAR 91.103 applies!

Having all available information about O'Hare or any other destination airport is an absolute must.  This includes having an airport diagram, all instrument approaches in use, FBO information, and any applicable STARs (Standard Terminal Arrival Routes) and DPs (Departure Procedures).  And don't forget all applicable frequencies, e.g., clearance delivery, ATIS, ground, and tower.

Mixing it up with heavy metal drivers can be a real confidence booster, but you must be on your game.  No missed radio calls are tolerated.  Pay attention and any reasonably proficient pilot will do fine at these big Class B airports.

Owners of piston engines have already heard the arguments about running their engines on the lean side of peak exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs) but, surprisingly, there are still a few who are still adhering to the old ways.

Most pilots have been taught in their primary training to lean their engine to roughness, than back off the mixture control by a couple turns.  Many do this without a clue of what is going on temperature-wise within each cylinder.  

While this practice works okay in small, four cylinder carbureted engines, carrying this practice over to larger bore six cylinder mills can have very dangerous consequences.  

We all know that engine leaning causes a corresponding increase in exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs).  Therefore, we believe that excessive leaning will cause excessively high EGTs.  And high EGTs lead to high cylinder head temperatures (CHTs), and that's what leads to premature engine wear.

In truth, the problem is not in leaning.  The problem is not in leaning enough!

If you were to graph the relationship between engine leaning as measured by fuel flow and engine EGTs, you will see a steady increase in EGTs with each unit of fuel flow reduction.  EGTs reach peak temperature, then they cool steadily.  The graph below illustrates this relationship (courtesy of General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (GAMI) of Ada, Oklahoma).

The different color lines in this chart depict the EGTs in each of the six cylinders.  Note that the temperatures peak, then begin to cool as the leaning process is continued.

Looking more closely, however, you should see a problem.  The yellow line, representing cylinder #1, peaked first at 14.5 gallons per hour (GPH).  The blue line, representing cylinder #3, peaked last at 13.5 GPH.   In other words, when cylinder #3 (blue) peaked, #1 cylinder (yellow) was operating well beyond and below its peak temperature.  Continued leaning beyond this point will cause cylinder #1 to stop firing altogether while #3 continues to fire!  This is what produces engine roughness when leaning!

Thus, we can see how the typical process of leaning to roughness, then backing off the mixture a turn or two could result in cylinder #1 running at peak EGT.  And peak EGT is what causes high CHTs!

Here is the problem . . . unbalanced fuel flows!

No pilot and certainly no A&P is comfortable with operating an engine with mis-firing cylinders.  And the best way to keep cylinders from mis-firing is to not fuel-starve them.  Thus, these same well-intentioned individuals say, don't aggressively lean your engines!  They explained that leaning not only causes roughness (cylinder mis-firing), it also causes excessively high EGTs and resulting excessively high CHTs. 

They were correct . . . that is until the GAMI folks came along and offered a fix to the unbalanced fuel flow problem!  George Braly and his colleagues at GAMI discovered that by adjusting the size of the fuel injector orifices, you could equalize the fuel/air mixture going into each cylinder.  When this occurs, all six cylinders will peak at the same time in the leaning process. 

The end result is, as the engine is leaned, all six cylinders pass through peak EGT at the same time, then begin to cool without incurring engine roughness.  This is called running on the lean side of peak (LOP).  

The two charts below illustrate the difference between engines equipped with standard fuel injectors (first chart) and with GAMIjectors (second chart).  Note the fuel flow differences between the first and last cylinder to reach peak EGT.

In most cases, with tweaked injectors (called GAMIjectors), engines can run very smoothly at least 100 degrees F. lean of peak.  CHTs run correspondingly cooler and cylinder head pressures are substantially lower.  Fuel is burned more efficiently thereby minimizing any spark plug fouling and lead accumulation around the valves. 

The most immediate benefit is a fuel burn reduction of at least three gallons per hour!  Do the math!  At $4 per gallon, saving three gallons/hour over the 2,000 hours produces a total savings of $24,000 over the life of the engine!  And the chances of that engine reaching TBO without a top overhaul are greatly improved!

The only sacrifice is slight loss in airspeed.

Why hasn't running LOP been universally accepted by all A&Ps?

When first introduced, the notion of running GA engines LOP was widely rejected by A&Ps.  They believed the average GA pilot did not have either the interest or aptitude to understand the process.  Similarly, most GA airplanes back then did not have the required multi-engine analyzers in their panels to measure what was going on temperature-wise in a EACH cylinder.

The most resistance seem to come from the so-called "experts" who did not take the time to really get in an investigate the science of LOP operations.   Holding on to past beliefs, they were simply resistant to change.

Today, running LOP has received wide-spread acceptance throughout the GA community.  Columbia Aircraft, for example, trains pilots of their Columbia 400s to operate LOP, as do other a/c manufacturers.  It took a long time, but the word is out!

Do all GA piston engines require GAMIjectors?

No!  Obviously, carbureted engines cannot use them (they do not have fuel injectors in the first place).  Some fuel injected engines do come out of the factory with a surprisingly well-balanced fuel flows using standard injectors, thus making GAMIjectors unnecessary.

Engine manufacturers such as Continental have recently equipped some of their new engines with tuned induction systems that produce close to the same balanced fuel/air mixtures going into each cylinders as achieved with GAMIjectors.

We pilots have responsibilities that go beyond aircraft control.  We should also be aware of how to optimally manage our aircraft systems . . . including its powerplant.

For more information on LOP, click HERE.

It was a normal flight in every way.  A 4,000 plus hour instrument rated pilot took off in his Piper Arrow. 

Encountering IMC conditions, he air-filed an IFR plan to the Pitt/Greenville Airport (PGV) in Bethel, North Carolina.  Shortly thereafter, ATC descended him to 3,000 feet and cleared him for the ILS approach, full procedure as published.

From there, things went right into the dumper!

Below is a summary of what the radar showed:

The reported weather at PGV was 300' overcast, visibility 1 statute mile light rain, winds calm, temperature 55 degrees F, dew point 54 degrees F.

Package warnings say, "Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Chlorpheniramine may cause dizziness or drowsiness. If you experience dizziness or drowsiness, avoid these activities.

Chlorpheniramine also interferes with the normal function of the inner ear, potentially increasing susceptibility to spatial disorientation."

The accident pilot's two mistakes . . .

The pilot's logbook revealed that he had logged only 0.4 hours of instrument flight time in the previous six months, and only two hours of instrument time in the previous full year.

His second mistake, of course, was taking dizziness-causing drugs before his flight. 

Here is what the FARs have to say . . .

No intention to violate the regulations

As is often the case, no pilot knowingly intends to consume drugs or alcohol prior to flight.  Instead, they suddenly find it necessary to fly while still under their influence.  Rather than waiting out the required physiological dissipation period, they launch, hoping to not be affected by their lingering properties.

In the accident case described here, the pilot took off in VFR conditions.  He likely believed that his VFR skills would not be adversely affected by a normal antihistamine dose.  Nor did he believe that his lack of instrument currency would be a factor.

What he did not count on was having to make an instrument approach at his destination.  

IFR flight is challenging enough.  When we are not instrument current and we have recently ingested a potentially "disorienting" drug, the chances of a successful outcome are poor!