As we were flying over to Newton, IA today, we started discussing icing and
snow -- something that we must constantly worry about in these parts for at
least the next 4 months.

As we were talking, we heard a "Flight for Life" 'copter on Unicom, which
got us to wondering how it is that these guys seem to fly in ANY weather.

Which got us to wondering further: How do helicopters handle ice? Are the
main rotor blades heated? Does the centrifugal force on those huge blades
prevent ice build up? What about the rest of the fuselage? How do they
de-ice themselves?

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ice on helicopters is a problem and they need to be deiced.
The issues are different in detail but not in principle.
The rotor flexes a lot and that can shed ice on some areas,
but rotors have nodes that don't flex. Also inlets,
instruments and such can all ice. Most helicopters are not
certified for icing conditions. Those used by the North Sea
oil companies and the military transports usually are. Each
copter is different.

I had a friend who flew Santa from one town to another for
the mall, they got into ice in a Jet Ranger and made a dozen
stops in fields along the 30 mile route, to stop and knock
the iced off. It probably was not a legal flight, but I
wasn't the pilot or on the bird.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:a5qjf.582408$x96.381721@attbi_s72...
| As we were flying over to Newton, IA today, we started
discussing icing and
| snow -- something that we must constantly worry about in
these parts for at
| least the next 4 months.
|
| As we were talking, we heard a "Flight for Life" 'copter
on Unicom, which
| got us to wondering how it is that these guys seem to fly
in ANY weather.
|
| Which got us to wondering further: How do helicopters
handle ice? Are the
| main rotor blades heated? Does the centrifugal force on
those huge blades
| prevent ice build up? What about the rest of the
fuselage? How do they
| de-ice themselves?
|
| Thanks!
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|

Well, I can tell you that helis are not free from ice worry. I know
Apaches have heaters in their blades allowing them to de-ice. Sadly,
they can not use them because it causes problems with blade
delamination. Which really means the cure is worse than ice. Hehe.
Go figure. For $24Mil per Longbow, surely you didn't really expect an
all weather bird! ;)

Long story short, if they fly in icing weather, I imagine are they have
some form of heating in their blades.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> As we were flying over to Newton, IA today, we started discussing icing and
> snow -- something that we must constantly worry about in these parts for at
> least the next 4 months.
>
> As we were talking, we heard a "Flight for Life" 'copter on Unicom, which
> got us to wondering how it is that these guys seem to fly in ANY weather.
>
> Which got us to wondering further: How do helicopters handle ice? Are the
> main rotor blades heated? Does the centrifugal force on those huge blades
> prevent ice build up? What about the rest of the fuselage? How do they
> de-ice themselves?
>
> Thanks!

Jumping in here -

Having worked for a medevac operator where most of the helicopters were
VFR only, my guess is this - they don't fly in IMC, let alone IMC with
the possibility of icing.

I asked our helicopter pilots and mechanics about this time after time,
and their reply was always the same - "Flying in the clouds, running
into ice, and shooting approaches are dangerous. I can't believe you do
it in an airplane."

I'm sure there's more to it, but I never got a good answer.

Don't know about ice on rotors, but experienced engine out due to carb
icing once.

Helicopters face the same challenges of other aircraft. However, there
are some differences. The rotor blades are very flexible ... more than
one would think. This serves to remove the formation of large amounts
of ice. Small films are probably able to form, but large heavy films
probably do not in most circumstances. Additonally, helicoptors are
fairly well insulated capsules with large engines piggy-backed right
behind the cabin. This helps since these two capsules can preserve the
generated heat, pretty well. Yes, other external parts can ice up, but
the whole cabin is pretty much the helicopter. The rest, is a lot of
smaller surface area. Personally, I think the tail section and rear
rotor would be the trouble area under such circumstances.
Flyingmonk wrote:
> Don't know about ice on rotors, but experienced engine out due to carb
> icing once.

> Having worked for a medevac operator where most of the helicopters were
> VFR only, my guess is this - they don't fly in IMC, let alone IMC with the
> possibility of icing.

Of course, what's their definition of "IMC"?

Don't helicopters have a lower threshold for IMC than we fixed wing folks?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Just fly very, very low. I had a friend who flew Huey's. He said if the
detected ANY ice, they would land in whatever field they could. They
once camped out for 1/2 day. At CAP we were sent to look for a National
Guard Helo about a month ago. Turns out it landed in a field to wait
out icing weather and just couldn't get to a phone.

-Robert

>Don't helicopters have a lower threshold for IMC than we fixed wing folks?

It's a lower VFR ceiling and visibility limit, about half of
what the rest of us are held to. I guess we could call it an IMC
threshold. Helicopters can move forward slowly when the viz is bad, and
thereby avoid the cumulogranite.
But IMC and ice are two different hazards. I have heard of a
helicopter that runs hot bleed air through the rotors to deice them. I
don't know if that also applies to the tail rotor, or if it might be
electrically heated like a prop.

Dan

Yes, IIRC, "special VFR"

We can request "special VFR" that'll even allow for near "no vis" opt
IIRC.

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We can request "special VFR" that'll even allow for near "no vis" opt
> IIRC.

Special VFR still requires a minimum of 1 mile visibility.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:XNvjf.611926$xm3.441724@attbi_s21...
>> Having worked for a medevac operator where most of the helicopters were
>> VFR only, my guess is this - they don't fly in IMC, let alone IMC with
>> the possibility of icing.
>
> Of course, what's their definition of "IMC"?
>
> Don't helicopters have a lower threshold for IMC than we fixed wing folks?

Yes. See FAR 91.155 and 91.157. For all practical purposes, helicopters
can fly in arbitrarily low visibility. 91.155 grants them this right in
Class G airspace, and 91.157 grants them this right elsewhere (with a
Special VFR clearance).

Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty much anywhere that
there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface (generally below 700 or 1200
feet, depending), this means that as long as the helicopter pilot can see
well enough to avoid obstacles, the visibility is defined as being
sufficient, no matter how low it actually is.

Pete

1 mile is close enough to none for me

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Jay
Helicopters don't handle ice very well at all. Think of how it affects
the wings of airplanes? The rotor blades are the wings for a helicopter
and can't handle much ice at all. Long before there is enough ice to
sling off the blades, the helicopter is on its way to the ground either
under control, or out of control! The helicopters are much more
sensitive to weight than most airplanes, and the addition of weight in
the form of ice is real bad news for rotorcraft aside from blade ice.
For reference, I've got about 9000 hrs in rotor and another 13-14000 in
FW and more than 1500 actual IFR. I've experienced lots of icing
conditions in airplanes and if there is any ice forecast on my route of
flight in a helicopter...I simply don't go.
I've been forced to the ground in FW a couple times with clear ice and
shudder to think of what those same conditions would have done to me in
helicopters.
As for the EMS people, while I applaud their go get'em attitude, they
too must make an executive decision when icing conditions are present.
The simple aerodynamic rules could care less about ability or attitude!
Ice is to be feared and respected. For more info, check on
rec.aviation.rotorcraft and post the same questions. Or, better yet, go
to Just Helicopters.com and pose the same questions there for a lot of
answers by some highly experienced rotor people. The "Original" forum
has some real wise asses that pop up, but is also frequented by the old
pros. The new forum is more serious and if you post on each, you'll see
some interesting answers. Go take a look...!
Ol Shy & Bashful

>Yes, IIRC, "special VFR"

It's not SVFR. Note the (c) and (d) paragraphs in our Canadian
Law:

602.115 Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in
Uncontrolled Airspace
602.115 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within
uncontrolled airspace unless
(a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface;
(b) where the aircraft is operated at or above 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than one mile,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three
miles, and
(iii) in either case, the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not
less than 500 feet vertically and 2,000 feet horizontally;
(c) where the aircraft is not a helicopter and is operated at less than
1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than two miles,
except if otherwise authorized in an air operator certificate or a
private operator certificate,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three
miles, and
(iii) in either case, the aircraft is operated clear of cloud; and
(d) where the aircraft is a helicopter and is operated at less than
1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than one mile,
except if otherwise authorized in an air operator certificate or a
flight training unit operator certificate - helicopter,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three
miles, and
(iii) in either case, the aircraft is operated clear of cloud.

Dan

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:15:30 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>
>Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty much anywhere that
>there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface (generally below 700 or 1200
>feet, depending), this means that as long as the helicopter pilot can see
>well enough to avoid obstacles, the visibility is defined as being
>sufficient, no matter how low it actually is.

It was my understanding, that a Special VFR clearance was only issued
within the controlled airspace of the surface area of an airport:


§ 91.157 Special VFR weather minimums.

(a) Except as provided in appendix D, section 3, of this part,
special VFR operations may be conducted under the weather minimums
and requirements of this section, instead of those contained in
§91.155, below 10,000 feet MSL within the airspace contained by
the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled
airspace designated to the surface for an airport.

That doesn't seem to be what you are saying above. Did I miss
something?

> wrote

> For reference, I've got about 9000 hrs in rotor

Damn, I used to respect you, before you came clean with that fact! <g>

Why do Heli's fly? Because they are so ugly, the ground repulses them! ;-)

But you've never heard that one before, right?
--
Jim in NC

>> For reference, I've got about 9000 hrs in rotor
>
> Damn, I used to respect you, before you came clean with that fact! <g>

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. 9000 hours inside a frog blender?
That's *crazy*!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> That doesn't seem to be what you are saying above. Did I miss
> something?

I don't know what you missed. But the text you quoted doesn't contradict
anything I wrote.

If you are near the surface (less than 700', for example) and you are not in
Class G, it is practically certain that you are "within the airspace
contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the
controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport".

If you were not in such protected airspace, you'd be in the Class G
underlying the Class E (assuming there's any Class E in the neighborhood at
all). In Class G airpace, the Special VFR clearance isn't required; the
helicopter enjoys the lack of a minimum visibility requirement without one
there.

Pete

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 22:02:36 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> That doesn't seem to be what you are saying above. Did I miss
>> something?
>
>I don't know what you missed. But the text you quoted doesn't contradict
>anything I wrote.

I'm having difficulty with this particular clause of what you wrote:

>>On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:15:30 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::
>>
>>Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty much anywhere that
>>there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface (generally below 700 or
>>1200 feet, depending), ...

It seems to contradict:

§ 91.157 Special VFR weather minimums.

(a) ... , special VFR operations may be conducted under the
weather minimums and requirements of this section [Special VFR],
instead of those contained in §91.155 [VFR], below 10,000 feet MSL
WITHIN THE AIRSPACE CONTAINED BY THE UPWARD EXTENSION OF THE
LATERAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE DESIGNATED TO THE
SURFACE OF AN AIRPORT.

I find your qualification of "pretty much anywhere that there *isn't*
Class G airspace" to lack any mention of the necessity for the Special
VFR clearance to be flown within the CONTROLLED AIRSPACE SURFACE AREA
OF AN AIRPORT. So I must be misinterpreting what you wrote, or FAR
§91.157.

>If you are near the surface (less than 700', for example) and you are not in
>Class G, it is practically certain that you are "within the airspace
>contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the
>controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport".

Ah. So implicit in being less than 700' AGL while being in Class B,
C, D or E controlled airspace, is the notion that you are within an
airport's surface area of controlled airspace, for it is the only
controlled airspace charted to the surface.

>If you were not in such protected airspace, you'd be in the Class G
>underlying the Class E (assuming there's any Class E in the neighborhood at
>all). In Class G airpace, the Special VFR clearance isn't required [nor
>available]; the helicopter enjoys the lack of a minimum visibility
>requirement without one [a clearance] there.

In decades of flying, I had never considered the fact that controlled
airspace ONLY reaches the surface at airport surface areas be they
controlled airports or not.

>>For all practical purposes, helicopters can fly in arbitrarily low visibility.
>>91.155 grants them this right in Class G airspace [without benefit of a
>>clearance], and 91.157 grants them this right elsewhere [within controlled
>>airspace, BECAUSE it extends to the surface ONLY over airports] (with a Special
>>VFR clearance).

If "91.157 grants them this right elsewhere (with a Special VFR
clearance)," it must be possible to obtain Special VFR clearance at
(for example in southern California):

Paso Robles (PRB) an uncontrolled airport
Blythe (BLH) an uncontrolled airport
Needles (EED) an uncontrolled airport
Desert Resorts Regional (TRM) an uncontrolled airport
Imperial Co (IPL) an uncontrolled airport
Within the Class E surface extensions of many controlled airports

Is that actually the case?

I'm not an EMS pilot, but crew with the UW MedFlight program in
Madison, WI. We are actually one of the few programs that is certified
to fly IFR with patients. We have Augusta 109 Powers with dual Garmin
430's and FADEC, auto-pilots etc, etc.
All very nice.
But we will NOT fly in ANY weather.
Being a pilot myself, I was curious when I first started doing this
what the pilots attitude about weather decisions would be, especially
since the first program I flew with (LIFELINE in Indianapolis) was VFR
only.
I have found that our pilot are very professional, and VERY
conservative about the weather despite our capabilities. With the
recent spotlight on EMS operations (including the several front page
articles on "USA Today" and national news reports), the recent spate of
accidents, including a program losing two 109's recently, and the fact
that something like 10% of the EMS fleet has been lost/involved in
accidents in the last 5 years; this is appropriate.
With our daily crew briefings, the pilots try to stress the safety
aspect. I think we are all too aware that one bad decision or problem
seperates us from a smoking hole in the ground. What has surprised me
is that it is not an attitude of "that won't happen to us" that seems
to permeate much of aviation (and sometimes medicine) but an attitude
of "if it can happen to them, it can happen to us, so pay attention!
(and unofficially: keep your head out of your rectum!).
I enjoy the EMS flying immensely, it can be quite challenging at times
just from a medical perspective, let alone adding in the challenges of
flight.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I find your qualification of "pretty much anywhere that there *isn't*
> Class G airspace" to lack any mention of the necessity for the Special
> VFR clearance to be flown within the CONTROLLED AIRSPACE SURFACE AREA
> OF AN AIRPORT.

Why?

Pick a point in space that is "near the surface" (for the purposes of this
discussion, let's say 500', but anything lower than the floor of the basic
Class E airspace would be fine) that is NOT Class G airspace. The odds that
you can obtain a Special VFR clearance in that airspace are excellent,
because near the surface, the usual reason for the airspace NOT being Class
G airspace is that it's the controlled airspace around an airport.

> So I must be misinterpreting what you wrote, or FAR §91.157.

Yup, you must be.

> [...]
> Ah. So implicit in being less than 700' AGL while being in Class B,
> C, D or E controlled airspace, is the notion that you are within an
> airport's surface area of controlled airspace, for it is the only
> controlled airspace charted to the surface.

Yes. If you understand this, I don't see why you still don't understand
what I wrote.

> [...]
> In decades of flying, I had never considered the fact that controlled
> airspace ONLY reaches the surface at airport surface areas be they
> controlled airports or not.

Why not? And why is that relevant here?

> [...]
> If "91.157 grants them this right elsewhere (with a Special VFR
> clearance)," it must be possible to obtain Special VFR clearance at
> (for example in southern California):
>
> Paso Robles (PRB) an uncontrolled airport
> Blythe (BLH) an uncontrolled airport
> Needles (EED) an uncontrolled airport
> Desert Resorts Regional (TRM) an uncontrolled airport
> Imperial Co (IPL) an uncontrolled airport
> Within the Class E surface extensions of many controlled airports
>
> Is that actually the case?

Yes. A tower at the airport in question is not required for a Special VFR
clearance.

Pete

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm not an EMS pilot, but crew with the UW MedFlight program in
> Madison, WI. We are actually one of the few programs that is certified
> to fly IFR with patients. We have Augusta 109 Powers with dual Garmin
> 430's and FADEC, auto-pilots etc, etc.
> All very nice.
> But we will NOT fly in ANY weather.

Nor should you. The point here is simply that helicopters are governed by
less-restrictive visibility requirements than are fixed-wing aircraft.

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:25:28 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>
>Yes. A tower at the airport in question is not required for a Special VFR
>clearance.

I had no idea that was the case, but the AIM confirms it:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0404.html#4-4-5
b. When a control tower is located within the Class B, Class C, or
Class D surface area, requests for clearances should be to the
tower. In a Class E surface area, a clearance may be obtained from
the nearest tower, FSS, or center.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>Yes. A tower at the airport in question is not required for a Special VFR
>>clearance.
>
> I had no idea that was the case, but the AIM confirms it:

Yes, I know. :)

For what it's worth, it helps to remember that a Special VFR clearance is in
essence an IFR clearance for VFR traffic (even though, obviously, it's not
literally an IFR clearance at all). That is, the Special VFR clearance has
the same effect for the VFR aircraft than an IFR approach clearance has for
an IFR aircraft: it dedicates the controlled airspace protecting the
approach and airport to that one aircraft.

So, just as one can obtain an IFR approach clearance for an uncontrolled
airport, one can obtain a Special VFR clearance for an uncontrolled airport,
and for the same reasons.

Pete

> I enjoy the EMS flying immensely, it can be quite challenging at times
> just from a medical perspective, let alone adding in the challenges of
> flight.

Thanks for chiming in, Ryan -- I hadn't heard from you since OSH. Glad to
see you're keeping busy! :-)

10% of the EMS fleet has been involved in an accident in the last 5 years?
That's incredible! You have to wonder at what point the public will start
doing a cost/benefit analysis of helicopter rescue ops.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> 10% of the EMS fleet has been involved in an accident in the last 5 years?
> That's incredible! You have to wonder at what point the public will start
> doing a cost/benefit analysis of helicopter rescue ops.

Let's hope they don't. The public is scared enough of general aviation
as it is.

In all seriousness though, ground ambulances don't have that great of a
safety record, either, and they're SLOW. When it comes right down to
it, air evacuation is still the way go to in some places - for the speed
factor alone.

And even if the public hasn't noticed the accident rate, someone else
has. :-) I can't tell you how much scrutiny we were under this year -
way too many visits from FSDO.

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:11:37 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>
>So, just as one can obtain an IFR approach clearance for an uncontrolled
>airport, one can obtain a Special VFR clearance for an uncontrolled airport,
>and for the same reasons.

That's not quite how I understand it. Isn't a Special VFR clearance
only available in controlled airspace?

IFR approach/departure clearances are available in Class G airspace as
well, right

Class is uncontrolled, no clearances are available. You can
depart an airport that is in Class G and begin an IFR when
you enter controlled airspace...a clearance will read
something like "...enter controlled airspace heading 240
degrees..."
In the "old days" it was easy to describe, special VFR was
only available in what was called a control zone, which was
the controlled airspace around an airport from the ground up
to 14,500. Now, SVFR is, in theory, available in any
airspace except Class A and such Class B as are listed in
Appendix D, but it is still tied to an airport based lateral
boundary. You can't fly a cross-country under SVFR unless
the two airports are "touching" their designated airspace.

The purpose of SVFR is to get VFR only aircraft (pilots) in
and out of airports when the local weather is good enough
for basic VFR once you get to the Class G or from the Class
G to the airport.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:11:37 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
| > wrote in
| >::
|
| >
| >So, just as one can obtain an IFR approach clearance for
an uncontrolled
| >airport, one can obtain a Special VFR clearance for an
uncontrolled airport,
| >and for the same reasons.
|
| That's not quite how I understand it. Isn't a Special VFR
clearance
| only available in controlled airspace?
|
| IFR approach/departure clearances are available in Class G
airspace as
| well, right

Have you guys ever seen the picture of the egg in the frying pan? This
is an egg.....this is an egg on drugs?
How about this is an airplane, and this is an airplane on drugs?
Geeeez guys can't you give me a break??? I said I have a few thousand
more hours that that in phyxed wings. Doesn't that get me a cup of
coffee or something?
Tell you the truth, helicopters are more fun if you are in a position
to do some low level maneuvering like in crop spraying. For long
distance I'll take the airplane being faster and you can relax a little
enroute. Not long back I ferried a turbine helicopter from near the
Canada border down to Baton Rouge, LA right after Katrina. What a long
trip that was! Had to land to refuel about every 2 hours and had to
plan carefully to make sure they had Jet A and of course they all made
me shut down during refueling. It is not uncommon for hot refueling in
many aviation operations and I've done more of that than the "cold"
refueling. Turbine equipment has a limited number of "Start Cycles" and
most operators will try to avoid them when they can. Has to do with the
spike of temperatures during the start sequence.
On the ice subject, I recall one time starting the helicopter on some
slick ice and as soon as the main rotor began to turn, the helicopter
began to turn too...slipping on the ice!! Talk about scary?
Ol Shy & Bashful

| Class G is uncontrolled
"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:KKgkf.11482$QW2.64@dukeread08...
| Class is uncontrolled, no clearances are available. You
can
| depart an airport that is in Class G and begin an IFR when
| you enter controlled airspace...a clearance will read
| something like "...enter controlled airspace heading 240
| degrees..."
| In the "old days" it was easy to describe, special VFR was
| only available in what was called a control zone, which
was
| the controlled airspace around an airport from the ground
up
| to 14,500. Now, SVFR is, in theory, available in any
| airspace except Class A and such Class B as are listed in
| Appendix D, but it is still tied to an airport based
lateral
| boundary. You can't fly a cross-country under SVFR unless
| the two airports are "touching" their designated airspace.
|
| The purpose of SVFR is to get VFR only aircraft (pilots)
in
| and out of airports when the local weather is good enough
| for basic VFR once you get to the Class G or from the
Class
| G to the airport.
|
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| ...
|| On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:11:37 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
|| > wrote in
|| >::
||
|| >
|| >So, just as one can obtain an IFR approach clearance for
| an uncontrolled
|| >airport, one can obtain a Special VFR clearance for an
| uncontrolled airport,
|| >and for the same reasons.
||
|| That's not quite how I understand it. Isn't a Special
VFR
| clearance
|| only available in controlled airspace?
||
|| IFR approach/departure clearances are available in Class
G
| airspace as
|| well, right
|
|

> On the ice subject, I recall one time starting the helicopter on some
> slick ice and as soon as the main rotor began to turn, the helicopter
> began to turn too...slipping on the ice!! Talk about scary?

Yikes!

I've landed on runways like that -- and it's just *not* a fun feeling to
suddenly be a passenger in your own plane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay
I was landing at Appleton, WI one winter and on rollout the 421 began
to slew around. Brakes were useless and as I passed the 90deg point,
the tower says, "Caution - Black ice on all runways and taxiways.." I
ended up using differential power to get it stopped after turning 180
deg on the runway!!!
It was so slick on the ramp that I put down Kitty Litter near the
airstep door so my pax didn't slip and fall. Was too slick to hold
position while I tried to exercise the props before take-off. Nasty
ice.....

Jay wrote:
>>> On the ice subject, I recall one time starting the helicopter on some
> slick ice and as soon as the main rotor began to turn, the helicopter
> began to turn too...slipping on the ice!! Talk about scary?

Yikes!

I've landed on runways like that -- and it's just *not* a fun feeling
to
suddenly be a passenger in your own plane.
>>

This happens w/ helis on floats too.

My point is that alot of this is a very academic discussion. From a
practical standpoint, if we are getting into splitting hairs on the
visability requirements, we should probably be having a serious
discussion of if we should be going by ground! If we are looking out
onto the city of Madison and I can't see across to the capitol, one of
us is probably going to say NO even if it is legal to fly SVFR. If one
crew says no, that's it. No go. No arguing.
It works well.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> My point is that alot of this is a very academic discussion. From a
> practical standpoint, if we are getting into splitting hairs on the
> visability requirements, we should probably be having a serious
> discussion of if we should be going by ground!

And *my* point is that, no matter where one sets the visibility limit, it is
plainly obvious that helicopters have more flexibility than airplanes. If
you need at least 1 mile to be safe in a helicopter, you need 2 or more
miles visibility to be safe in an airplane.

:
>But we will NOT fly in ANY weather.

Then why/how do you stay in business? Hehehe...

VFR for a helicopter is enough visibility to stop before you
hit something. But that is often harder to do than pilots
expect. The military has knocked several TV tower down when
they hit the guy wires before they saw the lights on the
tower. Sure would be nice if the guy wires were lighted,
maybe some reflectors and spotlights on the ground at the 4
corners aimed up at the reflectors.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > My point is that alot of this is a very academic
discussion. From a
| > practical standpoint, if we are getting into splitting
hairs on the
| > visability requirements, we should probably be having a
serious
| > discussion of if we should be going by ground!
|
| And *my* point is that, no matter where one sets the
visibility limit, it is
| plainly obvious that helicopters have more flexibility
than airplanes. If
| you need at least 1 mile to be safe in a helicopter, you
need 2 or more
| miles visibility to be safe in an airplane.
|
|

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> That's not quite how I understand it. Isn't a Special VFR clearance
> only available in controlled airspace?
>
> IFR approach/departure clearances are available in Class G airspace as
> well, right

No, not really. You can certainly fly IFR through Class G airspace, and it
may even involve a clearance as you transition into or out of controlled
airspace. But IFR flight in Class G doesn't require an ATC clearance, nor
could one be granted (since by definition, ATC doesn't control the
uncontrolled Class G airspace).

Pete

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:0kmkf.11519$QW2.182@dukeread08...
> VFR for a helicopter is enough visibility to stop before you
> hit something.

The same is true for an airplane. The difference being that a) helicopters
are able to fly at arbitrarily low airspeeds, and b) helicopters can
actually be brought to a stop mid-air.

No one is saying that helicopters can fly in any weather, least of all me.
But that's not what this thread is about. The question is simply whether
helicopters can fly in lower visibility than airplanes, and clearly the
answer is yes.

In airplane it is turn radius+reaction time, with a
helicopter it is stopping distance+reaction time. Since the
slowest airplanes, J3 or Helio Courier can fly at less than
50 mph and a helicopter height/velocity envelope may limit
minimum flight speed for a low-altitude helicopter. In very
low visibility, there may be little contrast so seeing will
be difficult. Also, unless the helicopter is flown at low
altitude, below 500 feet, the flight will be very much by
instruments, making an observer useful. Just like driving
in fog, it isn't hard to do with a 1/4-1/2 mile vis., but
when less than 100 yards it gets hard to follow the tail
lights in front or avoid the headlights coming at you.

Airplanes, VFR minimum is 1 statute mile, helicopter is see
and avoid. Since I have used 7 of my 9 lives, my minimums
are higher.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:0kmkf.11519$QW2.182@dukeread08...
| > VFR for a helicopter is enough visibility to stop before
you
| > hit something.
|
| The same is true for an airplane. The difference being
that a) helicopters
| are able to fly at arbitrarily low airspeeds, and b)
helicopters can
| actually be brought to a stop mid-air.
|
| No one is saying that helicopters can fly in any weather,
least of all me.
| But that's not what this thread is about. The question is
simply whether
| helicopters can fly in lower visibility than airplanes,
and clearly the
| answer is yes.
|
|

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:03:18 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<KKgkf.11482$QW2.64@dukeread08>::

>[If] Class is uncontrolled, no clearances are available.

[...]

>In the "old days" it was easy to describe, special VFR was
>only available in what was called a control zone, which was
>the controlled airspace around an airport from the ground up
>to 14,500.

Right. The last time I used SVFR was in the early '70s. It's been
amended a at least three times since then, but I haven't been
successful in locating the amendments on-line.

>Now, SVFR is, in theory, available in any
>airspace except Class A and such Class B as are listed in
>Appendix D, but it is still tied to an airport based lateral
>boundary. You can't fly a cross-country under SVFR unless
>the two airports are "touching" their designated airspace.

Never could. That was what I had erroneously inferred from Mr.
Duniho's:

Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty much anywhere
that there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface (generally
below 700 or 1200 feet, depending), ...

But implicit in his statement is the fact that the only place (I am
aware) controlled airspace touches the ground is within the surface
area of an airport.


>The purpose of SVFR is to get VFR only aircraft (pilots) in
>and out of airports when the local weather is good enough
>for basic VFR once you get to the Class G or from the Class
>G to the airport.

Yes. Like an occasion where there is a low broken layer in the
vicinity of the airport. The minima are relaxed to permit penetration
of the cloud layer while ATC provides separation from other SVFR and
IFR flights.

SVFR does not allow penetration of the clouds, it just
reduces cloud clearances and visibility required to the same
as Class G below 1200 feet within the Class E near the
airport. It is not a clearance to climb through a layer,
that requires an IFR ticket, airplane and currency.
It is so the pilot arriving at an airport that is below
Basic VFR for Class E, can enter and land without having to
declare an emergency. It also allows the pilot to depart
from an airport that is below Basic VFR when it is possible
to reach VFR condition within a few miles of the airport.

BTW< my typo, forgot to type the G in the first sentence,
you corrected with the [if] making it a question.

The FAA has all the regs on-line and also has previous
versions, http://www.faa.gov/
direct to regs
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/?CFID=15494080&CFTOKEN=88430961


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:03:18 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote in
| <KKgkf.11482$QW2.64@dukeread08>::
|
| >[If] Class is uncontrolled, no clearances are available.
|
| [...]
|
| >In the "old days" it was easy to describe, special VFR
was
| >only available in what was called a control zone, which
was
| >the controlled airspace around an airport from the ground
up
| >to 14,500.
|
| Right. The last time I used SVFR was in the early '70s.
It's been
| amended a at least three times since then, but I haven't
been
| successful in locating the amendments on-line.
|
| >Now, SVFR is, in theory, available in any
| >airspace except Class A and such Class B as are listed in
| >Appendix D, but it is still tied to an airport based
lateral
| >boundary. You can't fly a cross-country under SVFR
unless
| >the two airports are "touching" their designated
airspace.
|
| Never could. That was what I had erroneously inferred
from Mr.
| Duniho's:
|
| Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty
much anywhere
| that there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface
(generally
| below 700 or 1200 feet, depending), ...
|
| But implicit in his statement is the fact that the only
place (I am
| aware) controlled airspace touches the ground is within
the surface
| area of an airport.
|
|
| >The purpose of SVFR is to get VFR only aircraft (pilots)
in
| >and out of airports when the local weather is good enough
| >for basic VFR once you get to the Class G or from the
Class
| >G to the airport.
|
| Yes. Like an occasion where there is a low broken layer
in the
| vicinity of the airport. The minima are relaxed to permit
penetration
| of the cloud layer while ATC provides separation from
other SVFR and
| IFR flights.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:GPmkf.11520$QW2.11111@dukeread08...
> Airplanes, VFR minimum is 1 statute mile, helicopter is see
> and avoid.

It's nice to see you finally agreeing with what I was writing all along.

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:03:18 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
>| > wrote in
>| <KKgkf.11482$QW2.64@dukeread08>::
>|
>| >[If] Class is uncontrolled, no clearances are available.
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| >In the "old days" it was easy to describe, special VFR
>was
>| >only available in what was called a control zone, which
>was
>| >the controlled airspace around an airport from the ground
>up
>| >to 14,500.
>|
>| Right. The last time I used SVFR was in the early '70s.
>It's been
>| amended a at least three times since then, but I haven't
>been
>| successful in locating the amendments on-line.
>|
>| >Now, SVFR is, in theory, available in any
>| >airspace except Class A and such Class B as are listed in
>| >Appendix D, but it is still tied to an airport based
>lateral
>| >boundary. You can't fly a cross-country under SVFR
>unless
>| >the two airports are "touching" their designated
>airspace.
>|
>| Never could. That was what I had erroneously inferred
>from Mr.
>| Duniho's:
>|
>| Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty
>much anywhere
>| that there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface
>(generally
>| below 700 or 1200 feet, depending), ...
>|
>| But implicit in his statement is the fact that the only
>place (I am
>| aware) controlled airspace touches the ground is within
>the surface
>| area of an airport.
>|
>|
>| >The purpose of SVFR is to get VFR only aircraft (pilots)
>in
>| >and out of airports when the local weather is good enough
>| >for basic VFR once you get to the Class G or from the
>Class
>| >G to the airport.
>|
>| Yes. Like an occasion where there is a low broken layer
>in the
>| vicinity of the airport. The minima are relaxed to permit
>penetration
>| of the cloud layer while ATC provides separation from
>other SVFR and
>| IFR flights.
>


On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:24:30 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<gSpkf.11534$QW2.9670@dukeread08>::

>
>SVFR does not allow penetration of the clouds, it just
>reduces cloud clearances and visibility required to the same
>as Class G below 1200 feet within the Class E near the
>airport. It is not a clearance to climb through a layer,
>that requires an IFR ticket, airplane and currency.

That's why I used a 'broken layer' in my example instead of a solid
layer.

>It is so the pilot arriving at an airport that is below
>Basic VFR for Class E, can enter and land without having to
>declare an emergency. It also allows the pilot to depart
>from an airport that is below Basic VFR when it is possible
>to reach VFR condition within a few miles of the airport.
>
>BTW< my typo, forgot to type the G in the first sentence,
>you corrected with the [if] making it a question.

Class G being uncontrolled makes it parse the same either way.

>The FAA has all the regs on-line and also has previous
>versions, http://www.faa.gov/
>direct to regs
>http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/?CFID=15494080&CFTOKEN=88430961

Yes. Unfortunately, Part 91 isn't included under Historical FAR.

I've never said anything else, it must be someone else who
you confused with my comments.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:GPmkf.11520$QW2.11111@dukeread08...
| > Airplanes, VFR minimum is 1 statute mile, helicopter is
see
| > and avoid.
|
| It's nice to see you finally agreeing with what I was
writing all along.
|
|

Broken layer is effectively solid ceiling.

Thanks for the note about Part 91, I hadn't looked for old
regs.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
|
| >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| ...
| >| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:03:18 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| >| > wrote in
| >| <KKgkf.11482$QW2.64@dukeread08>::
| >|
| >| >[If] Class is uncontrolled, no clearances are
available.
| >|
| >| [...]
| >|
| >| >In the "old days" it was easy to describe, special VFR
| >was
| >| >only available in what was called a control zone,
which
| >was
| >| >the controlled airspace around an airport from the
ground
| >up
| >| >to 14,500.
| >|
| >| Right. The last time I used SVFR was in the early
'70s.
| >It's been
| >| amended a at least three times since then, but I
haven't
| >been
| >| successful in locating the amendments on-line.
| >|
| >| >Now, SVFR is, in theory, available in any
| >| >airspace except Class A and such Class B as are listed
in
| >| >Appendix D, but it is still tied to an airport based
| >lateral
| >| >boundary. You can't fly a cross-country under SVFR
| >unless
| >| >the two airports are "touching" their designated
| >airspace.
| >|
| >| Never could. That was what I had erroneously inferred
| >from Mr.
| >| Duniho's:
| >|
| >| Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty
| >much anywhere
| >| that there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface
| >(generally
| >| below 700 or 1200 feet, depending), ...
| >|
| >| But implicit in his statement is the fact that the only
| >place (I am
| >| aware) controlled airspace touches the ground is within
| >the surface
| >| area of an airport.
| >|
| >|
| >| >The purpose of SVFR is to get VFR only aircraft
(pilots)
| >in
| >| >and out of airports when the local weather is good
enough
| >| >for basic VFR once you get to the Class G or from the
| >Class
| >| >G to the airport.
| >|
| >| Yes. Like an occasion where there is a low broken
layer
| >in the
| >| vicinity of the airport. The minima are relaxed to
permit
| >penetration
| >| of the cloud layer while ATC provides separation from
| >other SVFR and
| >| IFR flights.
| >
|
|
| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:24:30 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote in
| <gSpkf.11534$QW2.9670@dukeread08>::
|
| >
| >SVFR does not allow penetration of the clouds, it just
| >reduces cloud clearances and visibility required to the
same
| >as Class G below 1200 feet within the Class E near the
| >airport. It is not a clearance to climb through a layer,
| >that requires an IFR ticket, airplane and currency.
|
| That's why I used a 'broken layer' in my example instead
of a solid
| layer.
|
| >It is so the pilot arriving at an airport that is below
| >Basic VFR for Class E, can enter and land without having
to
| >declare an emergency. It also allows the pilot to depart
| >from an airport that is below Basic VFR when it is
possible
| >to reach VFR condition within a few miles of the airport.
| >
| >BTW< my typo, forgot to type the G in the first sentence,
| >you corrected with the [if] making it a question.
|
| Class G being uncontrolled makes it parse the same either
way.
|
| >The FAA has all the regs on-line and also has previous
| >versions, http://www.faa.gov/
| >direct to regs
|
>http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/?CFID=15494080&CFTOKEN=88430961
|
| Yes. Unfortunately, Part 91 isn't included under
Historical FAR.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:33:09 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<DAskf.11546$QW2.9995@dukeread08>::

>Broken layer is effectively solid ceiling.

While it is true that:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0701.html
a. Ceiling, by definition in the CFRs and as used in aviation
weather reports and forecasts, is the height above ground (or
water) level of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomenon
that is reported as "broken," "overcast," or "obscuration,"

Given the fact that:

Broken is the term used to describe a layer of clouds that
is 5/8s to 7/8s of clouds.

Given the usual lack of uniformity in hole size, I would characterize
a thin broken cloud layer as often providing holes adequate to meet
the SVFR 'clear of clouds' requirement when using them traverse the
layer.

> It was so slick on the ramp that I put down Kitty Litter near the
> airstep door so my pax didn't slip and fall. Was too slick to hold
> position while I tried to exercise the props before take-off. Nasty
> ice.....

We get that fairly often in the Midwest. Today while doing our run-up, we
just started sliding along the taxiway toward the runway, with the brakes
locked on.

You get used to it.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"