I'm parked at Barnes Muni (BAF) and I want to be home in ROC. But there
is a AIRMET ZULU for ice in the clouds and precipitation above the
freezing level, and there are low clouds layered up to the flight levels,
and the MEA is above the freezing level. So it looks like we're going to
be driving the rental car home, and I'll come back to get the plane in a
couple of days when the weather is clear.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Think?" I asked. "I don't think. I'm a witness. Someone asks me a
question, and I answer it as honestly as I can. How could I be on anyone's
*side*?" -- David P. Murphy, on his participation in a lawsuit

no way to head south ? it's looking a bit clearer down on the CT
coastline, perhaps you can make a great circle out of it and wind up
sneaking back into Rochester from somewhere else.

Sucks to have to drive, but better to be on the ground wishing you were
up there than vice versa.

good luck

Robert

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I'm parked at Barnes Muni (BAF) and I want to be home in ROC. But there
> is a AIRMET ZULU for ice in the clouds and precipitation above the
> freezing level, and there are low clouds layered up to the flight levels,
> and the MEA is above the freezing level. So it looks like we're going to
> be driving the rental car home, and I'll come back to get the plane in a
> couple of days when the weather is clear.
>

In a previous article, Robert Chambers > said:
>no way to head south ? it's looking a bit clearer down on the CT
>coastline, perhaps you can make a great circle out of it and wind up
>sneaking back into Rochester from somewhere else.

The CIP icing models show some high probability over Rochester itself.
Being downwind of the lake is nothing but heartache in the cold weather.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.

Yeah I was thinking if you could get to Utica or somewhere a bit closer
than BAF. The drive would be shorter if you have to leave the plane
there and the drive back to retrieve the bird would be shorter as well.

I've been in icing myself exactly twice and that was 2 times more than I
needed. Each time it happened we got lower altitude and either a 180
out of it or vectors to an airport.

Taking the safest course of action is never a dumb move.

Robert

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Robert Chambers > said:
>
>>no way to head south ? it's looking a bit clearer down on the CT
>>coastline, perhaps you can make a great circle out of it and wind up
>>sneaking back into Rochester from somewhere else.
>
>
> The CIP icing models show some high probability over Rochester itself.
> Being downwind of the lake is nothing but heartache in the cold weather.
>
>

In a previous article, Robert Chambers > said:
>Yeah I was thinking if you could get to Utica or somewhere a bit closer
>than BAF. The drive would be shorter if you have to leave the plane
>there and the drive back to retrieve the bird would be shorter as well.

As I was driving out of the parking lot at Barnes, there was a fair chunk
of blue sky to the west. I was really tempted to fly west and see how far
I could get VFR with maybe a popup IFR clearance for an approach somewhere
and rent a car there, and that's what I would have done if I were alone.
But my wife doesn't like the uncertainty of not knowing whether we're
going to find a rental car or a motel room.

On the drive home, we drove through some high hills with low clouds down
below the peaks and cold rain, and figured that being in the car was
probably the best decision. I'm just not sure when the conditions are
going to be conducive to bringing the plane home, and the club is NOT
going to be happy about that. I might go down on Wednesday and give it a
try to see how far I get.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Legacy (adj): an uncomplimentary computer-industry epithet that
means 'it works'." -- Anthony DeBoer

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:37:41 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

> I'm just not sure when the conditions are
>going to be conducive to bringing the plane home, and the club is NOT
>going to be happy about that.

Yes, they would have been much happier had you become an icing accident.

Seriously, if the club is second guessing your decision, there's something
very wrong with the safety culture there.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:37:41 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
>Tomblin) wrote:
>> I'm just not sure when the conditions are
>>going to be conducive to bringing the plane home, and the club is NOT
>>going to be happy about that.
>
>Yes, they would have been much happier had you become an icing accident.

Well, the guy who had it booked for Monday and Tuesday wrote to me that
he'd been thinking of cancelling anyway because of the weather, so I feel
better about that.

This morning I look at the airmets, and there are two of them for icing,
with a narrow little corridor between them straight between BAF and ROC.
Not sure if I trust that narrow corridor to stay open, though. How good
are the boundaries of airmets? Are you ever going to encounter the
conditions outside the boundaries, or are they pretty conservative about
them?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Programmer (n): One who makes the lies the salesman told come true.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>How good
> are the boundaries of airmets? Are you ever going to encounter the
> conditions outside the boundaries, or are they pretty conservative about
> them?

Icing is hardly ever as predictable as we'd like but my personal experience
is that I've found that the boundaries are usually broader than actual icing
conditions, but the accumulation rates can be both more and or less severe
than indicated in the airmet because it is also unpredictable and is highly
dependent on your speed and time spent in the conditions. I also fly around
the great lakes, and downwind from the lake is a great place to find ice
building faster than predicted and faster than you can get out of it.
Usually when the windward side is CAVU, the lake effect layer on the leeward
side isn't very thick, but you sure as hell don't want to be stuck in it
very long. If the windward side is IFR and tops into the teens or higher,
the lake effect moisture is just added to those conditions on the leeward
side, and you've probably lost all your "outs". Stay away... stay far away.

I've found that the ADDS forecast has been pretty accurate. If I can get
above a potential icing layer that isn't too thick, fly towards warmer
conditions and then do a slam dunk down through it into warmer and clear
conditions near my destination, I'll give it some serious consideration. If
I don't have at least 3 "outs", (altitude, distance, improving weather,
higher temps, between layers, ect.) I won't consider it.

This weekend in WI was a perfect case of airmets galore, but good planning
wouldn't have prevented flying due to ice. Overcast at 2700, clear above
3000.(4000 MSL) light to moderate rime ICIP airmet blanketing the entire
state. VFR both south and north of us, surface temps between 40 and 45F.
Freezing level 4000 MSL north sloping to 6000 MSL south. ADDS was
predicting a 80-90% chance of icing at 6000, nothing at 3000, and nothing at
9000. The "go" decision could be made because the clouds at 2700-3000 AGL
were below the freezing level and it was clear above, so the airmet didn't
have any weather that it applied to. Be careful when using ADDS that you
remember ceilings are AGL, icing predictions are MSL. So, we could have
taken off, climbed through the ceiling into clear air.

What if we come upon a layer at 6000 where ADDS said 80-90% chance of ice?

What are our outs?
1) Climb above it, ADDS predicted 0% at 9000, climb is always my first
choice. you can climb before you accumulate ice, you can always go down.

2) descend below it and continue, MEA is 3000 MSL

3) descend through it and land

4) turn around and fly back into clear weather

5) turn 90 degrees to the system and fly around it, this requires knowledge
of the area of coverage and conditions surrounding it, plus additional fuel.

I hate airmet zulu as well, it always throws the unknown at you. All we can
do is explore all our options, set minimal standards, do extra planning, and
be willing to stay on the ground. Fly safe.

Jim

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:28:22 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:37:41 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
>>Tomblin) wrote:
>>> I'm just not sure when the conditions are
>>>going to be conducive to bringing the plane home, and the club is NOT
>>>going to be happy about that.
>>
>>Yes, they would have been much happier had you become an icing accident.
>
>Well, the guy who had it booked for Monday and Tuesday wrote to me that
>he'd been thinking of cancelling anyway because of the weather, so I feel
>better about that.
>
>This morning I look at the airmets, and there are two of them for icing,
>with a narrow little corridor between them straight between BAF and ROC.
>Not sure if I trust that narrow corridor to stay open, though. How good
>are the boundaries of airmets? Are you ever going to encounter the
>conditions outside the boundaries, or are they pretty conservative about
>them?

I have not looked in detail at weather in the NY area today. However,
given the general picture these past few days, I would not fly in a
non-deice'd a/c in the clouds higher than the freezing level. There's a
lot of moisture in these clouds.

An FIP map that I downloaded last night valid at 0900Z showed significant
icing probability along your route at 6,000', although it did look doable
at 3,000'.

I flew today from Eastport to Bangor and back in my non-deiced Mooney. But
I stayed at 3,000' and had no ice -- occasional light rain that sure would
have been ice had I been above the FL (about 4,000'). Here, with little
traffic, there were still scattered reports of icing.

One thing that's real important in flying, is to not weigh factors like "so
and so has the plane booked for <whenever> so I should try harder to get it
back to home base". That's just another form of "get-home-itis".


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>An FIP map that I downloaded last night valid at 0900Z showed significant
>icing probability along your route at 6,000', although it did look doable
>at 3,000'.

The MEA between CTR and ALB is 6,000 though. I'm looking at the
possibility of going VFR to the Hudson Valley and then the Mohawk Valley.
But there are still those hills to the south of Rochester.

Thanks for you advice and everybody else's on this thread. I feel like
I've made the right decision, but it's easy to second guess yourself.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Man in the tower, this is the man in the bird, I'm ready to go, so give me
the word." "Man in the bird, this is the man in the tower, you sound funny,
delay's an hour." - Rod Machado

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Robert Chambers > said:
>
>>Yeah I was thinking if you could get to Utica or somewhere a bit closer
>>than BAF. The drive would be shorter if you have to leave the plane
>>there and the drive back to retrieve the bird would be shorter as well.
>
>
> As I was driving out of the parking lot at Barnes, there was a fair chunk
> of blue sky to the west. I was really tempted to fly west and see how far
> I could get VFR with maybe a popup IFR clearance for an approach somewhere
> and rent a car there, and that's what I would have done if I were alone.
> But my wife doesn't like the uncertainty of not knowing whether we're
> going to find a rental car or a motel room.
>
> On the drive home, we drove through some high hills with low clouds down
> below the peaks and cold rain, and figured that being in the car was
> probably the best decision. I'm just not sure when the conditions are
> going to be conducive to bringing the plane home, and the club is NOT
> going to be happy about that. I might go down on Wednesday and give it a
> try to see how far I get.

I flew from ELM to LEB on Friday for the weekend. Woke up at the hotel
in Montpelier, VT Sunday morning to 3" of snow! Luckily, as we drove
back south to the airport we ran out of snow and into light mist. I was
iffy on attempting the flight home given the low clouds and freezing
level, but a twin had departed shortly ahead of me for PA and reported
on top at 10,000 with no icing problems. So, I decided to take a look
and see how far I could get. Got a little rime at 6,000, but was soon
between layers and had a pretty uneventful fight home. I did have to
climb to 8,000 to stay between layers near Albany and eventually up to
10,000 to get on top prior to Binghamton, but the descent into ELM was
through a thin layer with no problems.

One just never knows in this part of the country this time of the year.
You certainly can't fault any decision to cancel a flight this time of
year in such conditions. I've flown a fair bit in this area and decided
the risk was acceptable, but I did have the ILS 18 back into Lebanon on
my approach clip as I was climbing out. :-)


Matt

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:37:41 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
>>Tomblin) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm just not sure when the conditions are
>>>going to be conducive to bringing the plane home, and the club is NOT
>>>going to be happy about that.
>>
>>Yes, they would have been much happier had you become an icing accident.
>
>
> Well, the guy who had it booked for Monday and Tuesday wrote to me that
> he'd been thinking of cancelling anyway because of the weather, so I feel
> better about that.
>
> This morning I look at the airmets, and there are two of them for icing,
> with a narrow little corridor between them straight between BAF and ROC.
> Not sure if I trust that narrow corridor to stay open, though. How good
> are the boundaries of airmets? Are you ever going to encounter the
> conditions outside the boundaries, or are they pretty conservative about
> them?
>

I find the FAA weather guys to be pretty conservative about almost
everything, but even the best weather folks are wrong as often as they
are right. The FAA is especially conservative when calling for icing
and this is a real pain with the ever stricter FAA and NTSB
interpretations of "known icing." Now that forecast = known, it makes
flying in the northeast illegal for about 5 months of the year.

I tend to fly if there isn't rain at ground level and the freezing level
is at or above the MEA or I can fly VFR. However, I've flown a lot in
the winter and am reasonably comfortable taking on reasoned risk.
Everyone's risk assessment and tolerance is different and only you know
what you are comfortable with. If you are significantly concerned about
making the flight, then I'd say that alone probably says it isn't worth
it. Flying is supposed to be fun (unless you are getting paid for it)
so why make a flight that will give you white knuckles on the yoke?


MAtt

Absolutely you made the right decision. And you are around to make the
second guess.

You bring up a valid point as well, with your wife liking to know where
she is going to be staying and that you have the situation well in hand.
That is taking her feelings well into the equation and will keep her a
happy passenger for years to come.



Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>
>>An FIP map that I downloaded last night valid at 0900Z showed significant
>>icing probability along your route at 6,000', although it did look doable
>>at 3,000'.
>
>
> The MEA between CTR and ALB is 6,000 though. I'm looking at the
> possibility of going VFR to the Hudson Valley and then the Mohawk Valley.
> But there are still those hills to the south of Rochester.
>
> Thanks for you advice and everybody else's on this thread. I feel like
> I've made the right decision, but it's easy to second guess yourself.
>

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:19:12 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>>An FIP map that I downloaded last night valid at 0900Z showed significant
>>icing probability along your route at 6,000', although it did look doable
>>at 3,000'.
>
>The MEA between CTR and ALB is 6,000 though. I'm looking at the
>possibility of going VFR to the Hudson Valley and then the Mohawk Valley.
>But there are still those hills to the south of Rochester.
>
>Thanks for you advice and everybody else's on this thread. I feel like
>I've made the right decision, but it's easy to second guess yourself.

For sure you made the correct decision. It's a losing game to try to
second guess yourself, especially with ice.

If you've got clear cut outs, then it may be worth a try. That usually
means MEA's above the freezing level, which was NOT the case in your
situation. It might also mean an a/c that you know can get above the
clouds; thin layers; etc.

But in the lee of the Great Lakes one year I picked up enough ice to drop
my IAS by about 30 kts. Those lakes are great ice-makers -- better than my
refrigerator! You'll do well to treat them with respect.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

: This weekend in WI was a perfect case of airmets galore, but good planning
: wouldn't have prevented flying due to ice. Overcast at 2700, clear above
: 3000.(4000 MSL) light to moderate rime ICIP airmet blanketing the entire
: state. VFR both south and north of us, surface temps between 40 and 45F.
: Freezing level 4000 MSL north sloping to 6000 MSL south. ADDS was
: predicting a 80-90% chance of icing at 6000, nothing at 3000, and nothing at
: 9000. The "go" decision could be made because the clouds at 2700-3000 AGL
: were below the freezing level and it was clear above, so the airmet didn't
: have any weather that it applied to. Be careful when using ADDS that you
: remember ceilings are AGL, icing predictions are MSL. So, we could have
: taken off, climbed through the ceiling into clear air.

: What if we come upon a layer at 6000 where ADDS said 80-90% chance of ice?

: What are our outs?
: 1) Climb above it, ADDS predicted 0% at 9000, climb is always my first
: choice. you can climb before you accumulate ice, you can always go down.

: 2) descend below it and continue, MEA is 3000 MSL

: 3) descend through it and land

: 4) turn around and fly back into clear weather

: 5) turn 90 degrees to the system and fly around it, this requires knowledge
: of the area of coverage and conditions surrounding it, plus additional fuel.

6) Stay VFR at 2500 AGL? If it's overcast at 2700, staying out of the iced-up soup
altogether seems like a good plan as well. I'd rather be at 1500 AGL in VMC than
slogging through the soup waiting for ice to start accumulating and have to choose an
"out"

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

> : This weekend in WI was a perfect case of airmets galore, but good planning
> : wouldn't have prevented flying due to ice. Overcast at 2700, clear above
> : 3000.(4000 MSL) light to moderate rime ICIP airmet blanketing the entire
> : state. VFR both south and north of us, surface temps between 40 and 45F.
> : Freezing level 4000 MSL north sloping to 6000 MSL south. ADDS was
> : predicting a 80-90% chance of icing at 6000, nothing at 3000, and nothing at
> : 9000. The "go" decision could be made because the clouds at 2700-3000 AGL
> : were below the freezing level and it was clear above, so the airmet didn't
> : have any weather that it applied to. Be careful when using ADDS that you
> : remember ceilings are AGL, icing predictions are MSL. So, we could have
> : taken off, climbed through the ceiling into clear air.
>
> : What if we come upon a layer at 6000 where ADDS said 80-90% chance of ice?
>
> : What are our outs?
> : 1) Climb above it, ADDS predicted 0% at 9000, climb is always my first
> : choice. you can climb before you accumulate ice, you can always go down.
>
> : 2) descend below it and continue, MEA is 3000 MSL
>
> : 3) descend through it and land
>
> : 4) turn around and fly back into clear weather
>
> : 5) turn 90 degrees to the system and fly around it, this requires knowledge
> : of the area of coverage and conditions surrounding it, plus additional fuel.
>
> 6) Stay VFR at 2500 AGL? If it's overcast at 2700, staying out of the iced-up soup
> altogether seems like a good plan as well. I'd rather be at 1500 AGL in VMC than
> slogging through the soup waiting for ice to start accumulating and have to choose an
> "out"

Except 200' below the clouds doesn't meet the VFR minimums in most
classes of airspace.

Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
: > slogging through the soup waiting for ice to start accumulating and have to choose an
: > "out"

: Except 200' below the clouds doesn't meet the VFR minimums in most
: classes of airspace.

So fly at 2200'. The east/west rules aren't required if below 5000 AGL IIRC.
If you want to call it MVFR, great. I'm just saying I'll take MVFR to icy soup in my
spamcan. Once you're IMC you're "committed" and things like altitude and heading
deviations take (possibly lots of) time, unless you declare an emergency.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

> So fly at 2200'. The east/west rules aren't required if below 5000 AGL IIRC.

3000 AGL in the US.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:19:12 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>>An FIP map that I downloaded last night valid at 0900Z showed significant
>>icing probability along your route at 6,000', although it did look doable
>>at 3,000'.
>
>The MEA between CTR and ALB is 6,000 though. I'm looking at the
>possibility of going VFR to the Hudson Valley and then the Mohawk Valley.
>But there are still those hills to the south of Rochester.
>
>Thanks for you advice and everybody else's on this thread. I feel like
>I've made the right decision, but it's easy to second guess yourself.

A few years back we were headed for Boulder Colorado and Jefco (BJC).
We had diverted tot he south to avoid some heavy stuff to the north.
This added a good 250 miles to the trip.

We got a late start as my wife had to work in the morning and we
weren't out of 3BS until near 2:30 or 3:00 PM.

Other than passing through a line of thunderstorms just getting
started and at least 3 or 4 hours before they were to be in the area
the trip went fine. Well other than the 40 knot head wind. We
decided to overnight in the Topeka area as I really didn't want to be
getting into the mountain area after dark.

The next morning found storms forecast for the entire route so we went
airport hopping. Topeka to Salina where we topped off the tanks and
had lunch. Things were improving by 1:00 or so and we were off to
Hays KS where we spent another hour or so before heading to Goodland.

We/I had hopped to go straight to Boulder, but some towering Q had
slid off the mountains. We were close to 12,000 over Goodland, but no
way were we going to get over or around the stuff to the west. It was
just getting bigger and meaner. So we sat on the ground for a while
at Goodland.

A 182 headed out IFR while I was filing a VFR flight plan. (Below the
clouds it was crystal clear) so we headed out with an eye on the map
and every airport we passed with the closest to the south always in
mind. (the weather got better fast going south). We stayed under the
clouds, but by the time we passed Lyman CO, I was beginning to think
about heading south to find higher ceilings. Just as I was about to
turn the ceiling went up abruptly and visibility was a good 30 to 50
miles. Of course all we could see were those BIG BLACK TOWERING
Cumulus.

After we passed the south edge of the old Stapelton Airport visibility
started getting a bit stinky, but was still legal. Denver APP was
going to turn us loose, but I asked if we could hang around with them
for a while longer as it was getting kinda stinky around there. They
were kind enough to have us stay on frequency until we were
recognizing landmarks in the BJC area (Rocky Flats)

It was airport to airport and always watching for a way out,
just-in-case.

It's far better to err on the safe side than find yourself in deep
doggie do.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> : > slogging through the soup waiting for ice to start accumulating and have to choose an
> : > "out"
>
> : Except 200' below the clouds doesn't meet the VFR minimums in most
> : classes of airspace.
>
> So fly at 2200'. The east/west rules aren't required if below 5000 AGL IIRC.
> If you want to call it MVFR, great. I'm just saying I'll take MVFR to icy soup in my
> spamcan. Once you're IMC you're "committed" and things like altitude and heading
> deviations take (possibly lots of) time, unless you declare an emergency.

Yes, I'd call that MVFR. I believe the cutoff for east/west altitude
rules is 3000 AGL, but that wasn't my point. The point is that the
original suggestion was illegal in most airspace.

I'd rather fly IFR at a safe altitude and get around the ice, than scud
run in mountainous terrain just below the cloud bases and wonder when
the mountains and the bases will become one.

I flew in an area of icing potential just last weekend and had little
problem finding an ice-free altitude. I had to change altitude several
times to stay between layers, but in weather like that, there is very
little traffic below 10,000 feet, even in the northeast. I found new
altitudes to take less than 30 seconds toget, and it took that long only
because the controller volunteered to talk to a few other aircraft to
find the most promising altitude for me. I've found the controllers to
be extremely helpful on days like that. Just ask for their help BEFORE
you get in trouble, don't do something stupid and then drop the problem
in their lap.

Matt

Roger wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:19:12 +0000 (UTC),
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>
>>In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>>
>>>An FIP map that I downloaded last night valid at 0900Z showed significant
>>>icing probability along your route at 6,000', although it did look doable
>>>at 3,000'.
>>
>>The MEA between CTR and ALB is 6,000 though. I'm looking at the
>>possibility of going VFR to the Hudson Valley and then the Mohawk Valley.
>>But there are still those hills to the south of Rochester.
>>
>>Thanks for you advice and everybody else's on this thread. I feel like
>>I've made the right decision, but it's easy to second guess yourself.
>
>
> A few years back we were headed for Boulder Colorado and Jefco (BJC).
> We had diverted tot he south to avoid some heavy stuff to the north.
> This added a good 250 miles to the trip.

Cool! Nothing like having a good reason to do some extra flying!! :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> I'd rather fly IFR at a safe altitude and get around the ice, than scud
> run in mountainous terrain just below the cloud bases and wonder when
> the mountains and the bases will become one.

(not that you will see this, Matt, since you KF'ed me)

What you wrote is certainly true. Given roughly the same location as Paul
(the OP of this thread) was about to cross, another pilot opted to scud run
a couple of years ago and ended up crashing into terrain, killing himself
and the majority of his family. A real tragedy.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030310X00305&key=1

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:29:06 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:19:12 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>>In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>>>An FIP map that I downloaded last night valid at 0900Z showed significant
>>>icing probability along your route at 6,000', although it did look doable
>>>at 3,000'.
>>
>>The MEA between CTR and ALB is 6,000 though. I'm looking at the
>>possibility of going VFR to the Hudson Valley and then the Mohawk Valley.
>>But there are still those hills to the south of Rochester.
>>
>>Thanks for you advice and everybody else's on this thread. I feel like
>>I've made the right decision, but it's easy to second guess yourself.
>
>A few years back we were headed for Boulder Colorado and Jefco (BJC).
>We had diverted tot he south to avoid some heavy stuff to the north.
>This added a good 250 miles to the trip.
>
>We got a late start as my wife had to work in the morning and we
>weren't out of 3BS until near 2:30 or 3:00 PM.
>
>Other than passing through a line of thunderstorms just getting
>started and at least 3 or 4 hours before they were to be in the area
>the trip went fine. Well other than the 40 knot head wind. We
>decided to overnight in the Topeka area as I really didn't want to be
>getting into the mountain area after dark.
>
>The next morning found storms forecast for the entire route so we went
>airport hopping. Topeka to Salina where we topped off the tanks and
>had lunch. Things were improving by 1:00 or so and we were off to
>Hays KS where we spent another hour or so before heading to Goodland.
>
>We/I had hopped to go straight to Boulder, but some towering Q had
>slid off the mountains. We were close to 12,000 over Goodland, but no
>way were we going to get over or around the stuff to the west. It was
>just getting bigger and meaner. So we sat on the ground for a while
>at Goodland.
>
>A 182 headed out IFR while I was filing a VFR flight plan. (Below the
>clouds it was crystal clear) so we headed out with an eye on the map
>and every airport we passed with the closest to the south always in
>mind. (the weather got better fast going south). We stayed under the
>clouds, but by the time we passed Lyman CO, I was beginning to think
>about heading south to find higher ceilings. Just as I was about to
>turn the ceiling went up abruptly and visibility was a good 30 to 50
>miles. Of course all we could see were those BIG BLACK TOWERING
>Cumulus.
>
>After we passed the south edge of the old Stapelton Airport visibility
>started getting a bit stinky, but was still legal. Denver APP was
>going to turn us loose, but I asked if we could hang around with them
>for a while longer as it was getting kinda stinky around there. They
>were kind enough to have us stay on frequency until we were
>recognizing landmarks in the BJC area (Rocky Flats)
>
>It was airport to airport and always watching for a way out,
>just-in-case.
>
>It's far better to err on the safe side than find yourself in deep
>doggie do.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com


Sounds like a well thought out flight. I like it when a plan comes
together. I guess your wife can deal with that sort of uncertainty.
That's a good thing.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

In a previous article, "Peter R." > said:
>What you wrote is certainly true. Given roughly the same location as Paul
>(the OP of this thread) was about to cross, another pilot opted to scud run
>a couple of years ago and ended up crashing into terrain, killing himself
>and the majority of his family. A real tragedy.
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030310X00305&key=1

And the pilot in question was on the same mailing list as me and we'd
corresponded many times. Maybe not a friend, but a good enough
acquantance that I was considerably saddened by his passing. My wife had
heard the story back when it happened, and mentioned it to me on Sunday
when decision time came along.

Very, very sad.

Another guy on the same mailing list lost his best friend and airplane
partner (and their airplane) when said friend decided to circle to land in
extremely low visibility.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
You're nicer than I. I was thinking "Mark, would you recognize a clue
if one were gnawing on the end of your dick?"
-- random

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:47:16 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:29:06 -0400, Roger
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:19:12 +0000 (UTC),
>>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>
>>>In a previous article, Ron Rosenfeld > said:
>>>>An FIP map that I downloaded last night valid at 0900Z showed significant
>>>>icing probability along your route at 6,000', although it did look doable
>>>>at 3,000'.
>>>
>>>The MEA between CTR and ALB is 6,000 though. I'm looking at the
>>>possibility of going VFR to the Hudson Valley and then the Mohawk Valley.
>>>But there are still those hills to the south of Rochester.
>>>
>>>Thanks for you advice and everybody else's on this thread. I feel like
>>>I've made the right decision, but it's easy to second guess yourself.
>>
>>A few years back we were headed for Boulder Colorado and Jefco (BJC).
>>We had diverted tot he south to avoid some heavy stuff to the north.
>>This added a good 250 miles to the trip.
>>
>>We got a late start as my wife had to work in the morning and we
>>weren't out of 3BS until near 2:30 or 3:00 PM.
>>
>>Other than passing through a line of thunderstorms just getting
>>started and at least 3 or 4 hours before they were to be in the area
>>the trip went fine. Well other than the 40 knot head wind. We
>>decided to overnight in the Topeka area as I really didn't want to be
>>getting into the mountain area after dark.
>>
>>The next morning found storms forecast for the entire route so we went
>>airport hopping. Topeka to Salina where we topped off the tanks and
>>had lunch. Things were improving by 1:00 or so and we were off to
>>Hays KS where we spent another hour or so before heading to Goodland.
>>
>>We/I had hopped to go straight to Boulder, but some towering Q had
>>slid off the mountains. We were close to 12,000 over Goodland, but no
>>way were we going to get over or around the stuff to the west. It was
>>just getting bigger and meaner. So we sat on the ground for a while
>>at Goodland.
>>
>>A 182 headed out IFR while I was filing a VFR flight plan. (Below the
>>clouds it was crystal clear) so we headed out with an eye on the map
>>and every airport we passed with the closest to the south always in
>>mind. (the weather got better fast going south). We stayed under the
>>clouds, but by the time we passed Lyman CO, I was beginning to think
>>about heading south to find higher ceilings. Just as I was about to
>>turn the ceiling went up abruptly and visibility was a good 30 to 50
>>miles. Of course all we could see were those BIG BLACK TOWERING
>>Cumulus.
>>
>>After we passed the south edge of the old Stapelton Airport visibility
>>started getting a bit stinky, but was still legal. Denver APP was
>>going to turn us loose, but I asked if we could hang around with them
>>for a while longer as it was getting kinda stinky around there. They
>>were kind enough to have us stay on frequency until we were
>>recognizing landmarks in the BJC area (Rocky Flats)
>>
>>It was airport to airport and always watching for a way out,
>>just-in-case.
>>
>>It's far better to err on the safe side than find yourself in deep
>>doggie do.
>>
>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>Sounds like a well thought out flight. I like it when a plan comes
>together. I guess your wife can deal with that sort of uncertainty.
>That's a good thing.

She does a lot of bicycle riding on tours. Weather uncertainty, break
downs, and plain old mishaps are a way of life. When we say we are
headed for Colorado it may be straight line, by way of Montana, or
Texas. We may get there in one day or three days. Albeit, I have to
admit she wasn't real thrilled when we were 90 degreed in the
turbulence just south of Stapelton.

The trip home, which I've written about several times, had us stopped
at Marysville KS due to weather. ATC told us it looked good all the
way with the exception of some little level ones and twos in the
Topeka area. "We should be able to get over most of it, or just
deviate slightly to the north". From Salina they were climbing faster
than the Deb and clouds were building to the north so we had to set
down for the night. Another 15 to 20 minutes would have had us past
it.

The next morning the briefer said (for VFR), "You're in luck. It looks
good 40 miles either side of your flight path if you go right away.
Expect ceilings 1500 or less, visibility 5 or less, both much less in
many instances of heavy rain. Have a good trip!". (They had tornado
watches out)

When we took off it was into 30 G 50 right down the runway. Man, but
we made good time coming out of there. Not a bit of trouble with that
down wind turn<G>. At 500 feet we had over a 100 knot tail wind. It
took us 5:15 to get that far west from home. It took us 2:20 (or so)
coming back. My wife did comment: "You know, that Dramamine is
wonderful stuff".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

: Yes, I'd call that MVFR. I believe the cutoff for east/west altitude
: rules is 3000 AGL, but that wasn't my point. The point is that the
: original suggestion was illegal in most airspace.

I haven't re-read the entire situation, but a 2700' ceiling is not really
MVFR. There's 1200' before it's not "legal VFR" anymore. Flying anywhere east of the
Mississippi will pretty much put you at most 10 minutes from any airport you could
land at if things turn to crap in a hurry.

: I'd rather fly IFR at a safe altitude and get around the ice, than scud
: run in mountainous terrain just below the cloud bases and wonder when
: the mountains and the bases will become one.

IF there is IFR at a safe altitute without icing, I'll agree. For me,
freezing level below MEA is almost without exception a no-go if I cannot go VFR. If
SCT or BKN, or a very thin layer with well-known clear above (forecasts + pireps), may
go IFR to VFR-on-top. Dodging icing in layered and unknown density is *legally* not
an option in any non-deiced single, and *practically* REALLY not an option in my
little Cherokee.

My opinions on this may be jaded by the fact that if I'm going somewhere, I
tend to fly northwest towards Chicago out of southwest Virginia... immediately into
6000' MEAs over the mountains of west virginia. "Getting around" the relatively high
MEAs isn't really an option unless I'm willing to fly to PA first.

: I flew in an area of icing potential just last weekend and had little
: problem finding an ice-free altitude. I had to change altitude several
: times to stay between layers, but in weather like that, there is very
: little traffic below 10,000 feet, even in the northeast. I found new
: altitudes to take less than 30 seconds toget, and it took that long only
: because the controller volunteered to talk to a few other aircraft to
: find the most promising altitude for me. I've found the controllers to
: be extremely helpful on days like that. Just ask for their help BEFORE
: you get in trouble, don't do something stupid and then drop the problem
: in their lap.

If MEA is below the freezing level, I'll concur. In fact, I've stayed at
altitude going IMC overflying west virginia at 8-9000' at the freezing level to see if
I *would* pick up ice. When I did, I asked for lower, got it without delay, decended
a thousand or two and ice cleared up... no problem.


To each their own... I'm a lot more comfortable if I can see outside.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

> wrote in message
...
> I haven't re-read the entire situation, but a 2700' ceiling
> is not really MVFR.

Yes it is:

"MVFR means Minimum or Marginal Visual Flight Rules. MVFR criteria means a
ceiling between 1,000 and 3,000 feet and/or 3 to 5 miles visibility."

http://www.weather.gov/glossary/glossary.php?letter=m

--Gary

It's important not to forget the other side, where the freezing level
is (figuratively) far underground. Once you're looking at surface
temperatures of -20 degC or lower and no inversion aloft, icing becomes
very unlikely. You're not likely to have low surface visibility in
that weather (except for blowing snow), but mid-level ice-crystal cloud
might still be below MEAs enroute if you're passing over hills. We see
fewer winter days like that, though, with the rising temperatures.

Gary Drescher > wrote:
: > wrote in message
: ...
: > I haven't re-read the entire situation, but a 2700' ceiling
: > is not really MVFR.

: Yes it is:

: "MVFR means Minimum or Marginal Visual Flight Rules. MVFR criteria means a
: ceiling between 1,000 and 3,000 feet and/or 3 to 5 miles visibility."

: http://www.weather.gov/glossary/glossary.php?letter=m

I stand corrected. The little blue dots on aviationweather.gov always seemed
to go away at 1500'.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

> wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher > wrote:
> : > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > I haven't re-read the entire situation, but a 2700' ceiling
> : > is not really MVFR.
>
> : Yes it is:
>
> : "MVFR means Minimum or Marginal Visual Flight Rules. MVFR criteria means
> a
> : ceiling between 1,000 and 3,000 feet and/or 3 to 5 miles visibility."
>
> : http://www.weather.gov/glossary/glossary.php?letter=m
>
> I stand corrected. The little blue dots on aviationweather.gov always
> seemed
> to go away at 1500'.

That's a handy web site. Here's a link to the cite's guides to the meaning
of its symbols and acronyms:
http://aviationweather.gov/static/info/

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> That's a handy web site. Here's a link to the cite's guides to the meaning

Er, site's, not cite's. :)

: > : "MVFR means Minimum or Marginal Visual Flight Rules. MVFR criteria means
: > a
: > : ceiling between 1,000 and 3,000 feet and/or 3 to 5 miles visibility."
: >
: > : http://www.weather.gov/glossary/glossary.php?letter=m
: >
: > I stand corrected. The little blue dots on aviationweather.gov always
: > seemed
: > to go away at 1500'.

: That's a handy web site. Here's a link to the cite's guides to the meaning
: of its symbols and acronyms:
: http://aviationweather.gov/static/info/

As far as the regs go, is "MVFR" even defined? I kinda doubt it... it's
either below minimums (as prescribed by the overly complicated VFR cloud
clearance/visibility rules), or it's not.

In any event, except for mountainous terrain, I wouldn't think twice about
launching VFR into 2700 AGL.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On 10/27/2005 13:55, wrote:

> : > : "MVFR means Minimum or Marginal Visual Flight Rules. MVFR criteria means
> : > a
> : > : ceiling between 1,000 and 3,000 feet and/or 3 to 5 miles visibility."
> : >
> : > : http://www.weather.gov/glossary/glossary.php?letter=m
> : >
> : > I stand corrected. The little blue dots on aviationweather.gov always
> : > seemed
> : > to go away at 1500'.
>
> : That's a handy web site. Here's a link to the cite's guides to the meaning
> : of its symbols and acronyms:
> : http://aviationweather.gov/static/info/
>
> As far as the regs go, is "MVFR" even defined? I kinda doubt it... it's
> either below minimums (as prescribed by the overly complicated VFR cloud
> clearance/visibility rules), or it's not.

Well, it's defined (at least) in the Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge
(FAA-H-8083-25) and used throughout that document.

From page 10-15, in the section describing the Weather Depiction Chart:

"Areas of IFR conditions (ceilings less than 1,000 feet and
visibility less than 3 miles) are shown by a hatched area
outlined by a smooth line. MVFR regions (ceilings 1,000 to
3,000 feet, visibility 3 to 5 miles) are shown by a non-hatched
area outlined by a smooth line. Areas of VFR (no ceiling or
ceiling greater than 3,000 feet and visibility greater than
5 miles) are not outlined."

It is also defined in Aviation Weather Services, AC-00-45E:

IFR - Ceiling less than 1,000 feet and/or visibility less
than 3 miles; hatched area outlined by a smooth line.

MVFR (Marginal VFR) - Ceiling 1,000 to 3,000 feet inclusive
and/or visibility 3 to 5 miles inclusive; non-hatched area outlined
by a smooth line.

VFR - No ceiling or ceiling greater than 3,000 feet and visibility
greater than 5 miles; not outlined.



>
> In any event, except for mountainous terrain, I wouldn't think twice about
> launching VFR into 2700 AGL.
>
> -Cory
>
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

> wrote in message
...
> : That's a handy web site. Here's a link to the site's guides to the
> meaning
> : of its symbols and acronyms:
> : http://aviationweather.gov/static/info/
>
> As far as the regs go, is "MVFR" even defined? I kinda doubt it... it's
> either below minimums (as prescribed by the overly complicated VFR cloud
> clearance/visibility rules), or it's not.

True, being MVFR has no particular regulatory significance. But neither do
most of the other terms and symbols that appear in the government's aviation
weather products. Still, they have explicit definitions that are useful to
be familiar with in order to correctly interpret the meteorological
information that's offered.

--Gary

wrote:

> : Yes, I'd call that MVFR. I believe the cutoff for east/west altitude
> : rules is 3000 AGL, but that wasn't my point. The point is that the
> : original suggestion was illegal in most airspace.
>
> I haven't re-read the entire situation, but a 2700' ceiling is not really
> MVFR. There's 1200' before it's not "legal VFR" anymore. Flying anywhere east of the
> Mississippi will pretty much put you at most 10 minutes from any airport you could
> land at if things turn to crap in a hurry.

I believe it does fit the definition of MVFR, but it isn't worth it to
me to take the time to look up a reference to prove it to you. :-)
Again, my comment was about the suggestion to, as I recall anyway
without going back to the first post in this thread, fly at an altitude
that was only 200' below the clouds. 500' below is the minimum in
virtually all airspace. That was the legality I was talking about.


> : I'd rather fly IFR at a safe altitude and get around the ice, than scud
> : run in mountainous terrain just below the cloud bases and wonder when
> : the mountains and the bases will become one.
>
> IF there is IFR at a safe altitute without icing, I'll agree. For me,
> freezing level below MEA is almost without exception a no-go if I cannot go VFR. If
> SCT or BKN, or a very thin layer with well-known clear above (forecasts + pireps), may
> go IFR to VFR-on-top. Dodging icing in layered and unknown density is *legally* not
> an option in any non-deiced single, and *practically* REALLY not an option in my
> little Cherokee.

I pretty much agree. I wouldn't have flown last Sunday without a pirep
from a recently departed flight that was flying almost the identical
route as I planned to fly. However, I will typically go up and take a
look if I have reasonable outs. I understand the recent interpretations
of "known" icing to mean "forecast" icing, but that is really BS in my
opinion. If you adhere to that in the strictest sense, then you are
virtually grounded in the northeast for a very large part of the year as
icing is forecast on every cloudy day from virtually the ground up.


> My opinions on this may be jaded by the fact that if I'm going somewhere, I
> tend to fly northwest towards Chicago out of southwest Virginia... immediately into
> 6000' MEAs over the mountains of west virginia. "Getting around" the relatively high
> MEAs isn't really an option unless I'm willing to fly to PA first.
>
> : I flew in an area of icing potential just last weekend and had little
> : problem finding an ice-free altitude. I had to change altitude several
> : times to stay between layers, but in weather like that, there is very
> : little traffic below 10,000 feet, even in the northeast. I found new
> : altitudes to take less than 30 seconds toget, and it took that long only
> : because the controller volunteered to talk to a few other aircraft to
> : find the most promising altitude for me. I've found the controllers to
> : be extremely helpful on days like that. Just ask for their help BEFORE
> : you get in trouble, don't do something stupid and then drop the problem
> : in their lap.
>
> If MEA is below the freezing level, I'll concur. In fact, I've stayed at
> altitude going IMC overflying west virginia at 8-9000' at the freezing level to see if
> I *would* pick up ice. When I did, I asked for lower, got it without delay, decended
> a thousand or two and ice cleared up... no problem.
>
>
> To each their own... I'm a lot more comfortable if I can see outside.

Me too. If the windows are too dirty to see through to at last the
wingtips, I won't fly! :-)


Matt

: I believe it does fit the definition of MVFR, but it isn't worth it to
: me to take the time to look up a reference to prove it to you. :-)

No problem. Plenty of other folks to look it up to correct me... :)

: Again, my comment was about the suggestion to, as I recall anyway
: without going back to the first post in this thread, fly at an altitude
: that was only 200' below the clouds. 500' below is the minimum in
: virtually all airspace. That was the legality I was talking about.

True. IIRC, where it gets sticky in a regulatory sense is 1200/700' AGL
uncontrolled airspace just about everywhere. Avoiding "controlled all the
way to the ground" areas like airports, scud-running at 1000' AGL with an 1100'
ceiling is still legal.

: > : I'd rather fly IFR at a safe altitude and get around the ice, than scud
: > : run in mountainous terrain just below the cloud bases and wonder when
: > : the mountains and the bases will become one.
: >
: > IF there is IFR at a safe altitute without icing, I'll agree. For me,
: > freezing level below MEA is almost without exception a no-go if I cannot go VFR. If
: > SCT or BKN, or a very thin layer with well-known clear above (forecasts + pireps), may
: > go IFR to VFR-on-top. Dodging icing in layered and unknown density is *legally* not
: > an option in any non-deiced single, and *practically* REALLY not an option in my
: > little Cherokee.

: I pretty much agree. I wouldn't have flown last Sunday without a pirep
: from a recently departed flight that was flying almost the identical
: route as I planned to fly. However, I will typically go up and take a
: look if I have reasonable outs.

I don't remember the particulars of what you said. Finding layers or clear
above? MEA above freezing level? I'm being lazy and not looking at the previous
posts too. :)

I understand the recent interpretations
: of "known" icing to mean "forecast" icing, but that is really BS in my
: opinion. If you adhere to that in the strictest sense, then you are
: virtually grounded in the northeast for a very large part of the year as
: icing is forecast on every cloudy day from virtually the ground up.

My take on it is that I fly for fun and transportation. I respect the laws of
people, but I will NOT try to violate the laws of physics. As far as legalities go,
what's safe isn't necessarily legal and what's legal isn't necessarily safe. If you
practice good judgement (i.e. you don't have an incident), the forecast vs. known
issue won't be a problem.

Actually, I believe that my '69 PA-28 is legal to fly in icing conditions
because it's old enough to have a POH that doesn't specifically forbid it. Of course
there's always the "careless and reckless" clause.

: > If MEA is below the freezing level, I'll concur. In fact, I've stayed at
: > altitude going IMC overflying west virginia at 8-9000' at the freezing level to see if
: > I *would* pick up ice. When I did, I asked for lower, got it without delay, decended
: > a thousand or two and ice cleared up... no problem.
: >
: >
: > To each their own... I'm a lot more comfortable if I can see outside.

: Me too. If the windows are too dirty to see through to at last the
: wingtips, I won't fly! :-)

"Ba-dump bump... *ting* " :)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************