Issues around de-ice on a 182

[Andrew Gideon]

One of the members of my club has proposed that we add TKS de-ice to our two
182s. Apparently, such a system is to become available later this year.

My reaction at first was negative. After all, in our near-NYC location, the
utility of such a tool is limited to a few months a year. Surely we could
spend money better (ie. on upgades that would be useful year round).

His reply to this reasoning is that our aircraft utilization is much lower
in the cold months than in the summer. If we can increase winter use, then
we get better value from our investment.

It's a good point. Of course, when I mentioned this to my wife, she asked
how much of the lower use was due to the threat of ice, and how much was
due to our lack of love for preflighting in subzero weather.

Another good point <grin>.

But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious
what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.

Thanks...

Andrew

[Richard Kaplan]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...>


> But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
> compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm
curious
> what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.

You will need to wrestle with the issue of non-known-icing certification,
although the C182 certainly is overpowered enough to be a reasonable
candidate for known-ice certification and certainly there are many legendary
stories of C182 pilots flying with inadvertent icing in a C182.

I can tell you my increased utilization of my P210 after I added TKS has
been dramatic in the winter; in fact, I now prefer to fly family vacations
in the winter instead of the summer because my winter dispatch rate is
higher than my summer dispatch rate even with radar and weather datalink and
a Strikefinder. My wife would agree wholeheartedly despite the cost of TKS
on the P210.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
> compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious
> what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.

Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of
Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS
system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical.

During flights this past winter when I have encountered unplanned ice,
the system was extremely effective.


--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of
> Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> with redundancy, not functionality.

There may be functional differences, in that known-ice certification
requires a laundry list of protected surfaces (in addition to the redundancy
requirements), some of which may not be included in a "not known-ice"
certification. Some "non known-ice" installations meet all the requirements
except redundancy, but many do not.

That said, I'm not aware of any de-ice system on a single-engine piston
aircraft, known-ice or not, that is suitable for allowing a flight to be
made into reported non-trace icing. All of the systems should be used as a
"get out of jail free" card, to allow a pilot to take the plane out of the
icing with less hazard than would otherwise be had. From what I understand,
even on many (all?) light twins, the same is true.

Of course, that's not to say that a de-ice system wouldn't translate into a
higher wintertime dispatch rate. Just that pilots should be careful to not
think that having de-ice on their airplane means they can just cruise along
ignoring existing icing conditions.

Pete

[Bob Gardner]

No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
when encountered...they provide a safety margin while escaping from the
conditions. The exposure to icing required for known-icing certification
doesn't amount to much...Appendix C to Part 25 (which applies to Part 23 by
reference) requires quite a bit of interpretation, but for convective clouds
it is something like 3.8 miles and for stratus clouds it is something like
17 miles. If the droplets are larger than 40 microns or you stay in the
clouds longer than the distances laid out in the reg, you have exceeded the
known icing requirements and are on your own.

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of
> > Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> > between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> > with redundancy, not functionality.
>
> There may be functional differences, in that known-ice certification
> requires a laundry list of protected surfaces (in addition to the
redundancy
> requirements), some of which may not be included in a "not known-ice"
> certification. Some "non known-ice" installations meet all the
requirements
> except redundancy, but many do not.
>
> That said, I'm not aware of any de-ice system on a single-engine piston
> aircraft, known-ice or not, that is suitable for allowing a flight to be
> made into reported non-trace icing. All of the systems should be used as
a
> "get out of jail free" card, to allow a pilot to take the plane out of the
> icing with less hazard than would otherwise be had. From what I
understand,
> even on many (all?) light twins, the same is true.
>
> Of course, that's not to say that a de-ice system wouldn't translate into
a
> higher wintertime dispatch rate. Just that pilots should be careful to
not
> think that having de-ice on their airplane means they can just cruise
along
> ignoring existing icing conditions.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
> when encountered

Really? I had been under the impression that airline systems did allow
continued flight in icing conditions. That's not true, eh? Okay...well, in
any case, I think that there are pilots out there that don't understand that
de-ice doesn't mean you can just bomb on through icing conditions as if they
weren't there.

If not, so much the better. But if so, it might be helpful to dissuade
someone of that idea. :)

Pete

[Richard Kaplan]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...>

> Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS
> system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical.

Another difference is in-flight icing testing of a prototype airplane is
required for known-ice certification.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...>

"Peter R." > wrote in message

> That said, I'm not aware of any de-ice system on a single-engine piston
> aircraft, known-ice or not, that is suitable for allowing a flight to be
> made into reported non-trace icing. All of the systems should be used as
a

Have you tried TKS? On a Cessna 210?

It is certified for and does just fine in light to moderate icing... in
fact, I've never seen the airspeed needle decay even when the few
unprotected areas accumulated 1/4" to 1/2" rime.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Jay Smith]

1) Inquire about cost of maintenance
2) Inquire about cost of TKS (usually sold in 5 gallon containers?)
3) Inquire about FBO's that stock TKS (always call ahead)
4) Where are you going to store extra TKS in the aircraft
5) Inquire about how to clean TKS from aircraft interior (when I was a
dispatcher for NetJets, I had a pilot call in and report that the aft
baggage compartment was thoroughly deiced. The TKS container cap had not
been secured prior to flight, had tipped over and sloshed around the
compartment).

[Dan Luke]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> my winter dispatch rate is higher than my summer dispatch rate
> even with radar and weather datalink and a Strikefinder.

Wow! You must be having a hell of a thunderstorm season, Richard.

This summer, weather datalink has helped me to make every trip I've
planned without a single cancellation (although I did land short once).
In the last 5 weeks I've flown 30 xc hours despite widespread
thunderstorms over the entire South nearly every day. That's with a lot
less capable airplane than you have.

I'd be interested to read your go/no go parameters. What kinds of
summer conditions keep you on the ground?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Viperdoc]

I have a known ice installation on my B-55 Baron, and it works great. A twin
has the built-in redundancy of two electrical systems, and the other
requirements include a high heat pitot and stall warning vane, along with an
ice light. There are two pumps each for the windshield as well as the flying
surfaces.

It definitely increases the dispatch rate in the icing season, which in the
Midwest is from October through May (or longer). Several months ago I
encountered moderate ice over Michigan, and the commuters as well as other
GA aircraft were all calling looking for different altitudes. Luckily I was
able to descend out of the clouds, and the TKS completely protected all of
the flying surfaces. On landing, the nose, spinners, and even the landing
lights were covered with around 3/8ths inch of mixed ice, but the wings and
tail were fine.

I believe that most users would agree that TKS is superior to boots, hot
props, and alcohol for ice protection.

The downsides are: the initial installation is expensive, but should last a
lifetime. It does not require routine maintenance and doesn't slow you down
like boots, and won't need replacement. A full tank takes away nearly 100
pounds of useful load, and the stuff is expensive. I recall a 55 gallon drum
costing around $450.00. I never take off in the winter unless the tank is
full, and also carry several extra jugs around for longer trips. I also
collect the overflow and use it in a garden sprayer or spray bottle to deice
the plane if I think I will encounter icing conditions shortly after take
off

It also makes a terrible slippery slimy mess on the hangar floor which lasts
forever. It will drip for several weeks after use, and this means doing a
pre-flight invariably will either get your back dripped on, or you will
kneel in the stuff on the floor or slip.

However, all things considered, it is the only way to go to get ice
protection in the winter. It is not a ticket to drone on for hours in
freezing precip, but it will get you through or away from an icing layer
safely. It has been a great investment and has certainly increased the
usefulness of he plane.

[Dan Thompson]

What you say is true about propellor planes. Airline jets on the other hand
are designed to fly through most icing conditions all day long. This is
because excess hot bleed air from the compressor sections is routed through
the wings and empennage, the so-called "hot wing" system. Nacelle inlets
and other critical areas are heated also. It is a matter of degree (pun
intended). Enough heat is available and provided to deice a jet in all but
the most extreme conditions. No one has figured out how to deice a prop
plane to the same degree.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
> > when encountered
>
> Really? I had been under the impression that airline systems did allow
> continued flight in icing conditions. That's not true, eh? Okay...well,
in
> any case, I think that there are pilots out there that don't understand
that
> de-ice doesn't mean you can just bomb on through icing conditions as if
they
> weren't there.
>
> If not, so much the better. But if so, it might be helpful to dissuade
> someone of that idea. :)
>
> Pete
>
>

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...>

> I'd be interested to read your go/no go parameters. What kinds of
> summer conditions keep you on the ground?

I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate more than
scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when I can get boxed in
behind me or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms.

Often that means if I have a 1-day business trip returning in late
afternoon, I drive intead of flying because it isn't worth the worry/risk
that the afternoon storms will be too difficult to penetrate.

I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When
pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have
well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer
thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival
Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of
20 drove instead of flying.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dan Luke]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate
> more than scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when
> I can get boxed in behind me

That would keep me grounded much of the summer down here if I were very
picky about the definition of "scattered." Using satellite NEXRAD
requires me to be much more discriminating about the nature of the
storms. Are they numerous but developing and moving slowly? In that
case I might go if I "need" to (Angel Flight) and I see a route with
plenty of outs available. Are they popping up everywhere and moving
fast? No go. Sometimes the pattern of development is very obvious --
sea breeze storms, for instance -- and the NEXRAD will keep me assured
after takeoff that the route I've chosen is still good.

> or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms.

That's what stopped us short of Jackson, MS. The pilot of the next leg
had to drive out to Laurel in his car and pick up the patient, drive her
back to Jackson and wait for the line to pass.

> Often that means if I have a 1-day business trip returning
> in late afternoon, I drive intead of flying because it isn't
> worth the worry/risk that the afternoon storms will be too
> difficult to penetrate.

Yeah, I used to cancel a lot of business flights to Dothan for just that
reason. I haven't since I got the weather link, though.

> When I conducted a group "IFR Survival Weekend" class
> a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
> but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore
> about 15 out of 20 drove instead of flying.

Don't get me wrong, thunderstorms still scare the crap out of me. It's
just that now I know where they are and what they're doing: it was the
fear of flying blind that used to keep me on the ground a lot more
often.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter R.]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
> when encountered...they provide a safety margin while escaping from the
> conditions.

That's how I use it. The problem is that the TKS system is so effective
when functioning, there might be a moment when it is difficult to know
whether the aircraft is picking up ice or not.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Andrew Gideon]

Dan Luke wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, thunderstorms still scare the crap out of me. It's
> just that now I know where they are and what they're doing: it was the
> fear of flying blind that used to keep me on the ground a lot more
> often.

All our aircraft (including the 182s subject to the potential addition of
de-ice) have strikefinders. However, one of the options I'd entertain as
an alternative to the de-ice is weather download.

- Andrew

[Bob Gardner]

Turbine-powered transport category airplanes are a different kettle of
fish...but even they are prohibited from flying into forecast severe icing.
In my brief experience flying Part 91 corporate jets we took icing very
seriously in spite of having all the goodies...a chunk of ice can put a
turbine out of action.

The regs I cited all say something to the effect of "..except for those
meeting Appendix C of Part 25...", but those regs were written back in the
40s, when supercooled liquid droplets had not yet been discovered. Forty
microns is less than the size of a pencil lead; the many turboprop ADs that
followed the Roselawn accident tell pilots that any precip that runs back on
side windows are far larger and exceed Part 25 certification standards.

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions
> > when encountered
>
> Really? I had been under the impression that airline systems did allow
> continued flight in icing conditions. That's not true, eh? Okay...well,
in
> any case, I think that there are pilots out there that don't understand
that
> de-ice doesn't mean you can just bomb on through icing conditions as if
they
> weren't there.
>
> If not, so much the better. But if so, it might be helpful to dissuade
> someone of that idea. :)
>
> Pete
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> One of the members of my club has proposed that we add TKS de-ice to our two
> 182s. Apparently, such a system is to become available later this year.
>
> My reaction at first was negative. After all, in our near-NYC location, the
> utility of such a tool is limited to a few months a year. Surely we could
> spend money better (ie. on upgades that would be useful year round).
>
> His reply to this reasoning is that our aircraft utilization is much lower
> in the cold months than in the summer. If we can increase winter use, then
> we get better value from our investment.
>
> It's a good point. Of course, when I mentioned this to my wife, she asked
> how much of the lower use was due to the threat of ice, and how much was
> due to our lack of love for preflighting in subzero weather.
>
> Another good point <grin>.
>
> But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
> compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious
> what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.

Without "known icing" certification, I don't think it buys you much at
all from utilization perspective. It is insurance if you get caught in
ice, but that is it. And if if DOES increase utilization it means that
you have pilots flying in conditions they likely shouldn't be in anyway.

And, I know from a hairy personal experience, a Skylane will carry a lot
of ice and still fly pretty well. I'd invest the money and weight into
something more useful.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter R. wrote:

> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>
>>But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
>>compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious
>>what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.
>
>
> Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of
> Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS
> system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical.
>
> During flights this past winter when I have encountered unplanned ice,
> the system was extremely effective.
>
>

I thought the biggest difference was legal, not functional. :-)

Matt

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> > I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate
> > more than scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when
> > I can get boxed in behind me
>
> That would keep me grounded much of the summer down here if I were very
> picky about the definition of "scattered."

Out west (I've only flown twice east of the Mississippi in 15 years flying)
it means leaving at sunrise and being back before about 3:00PM.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...>

> Out west (I've only flown twice east of the Mississippi in 15 years
flying)
> it means leaving at sunrise and being back before about 3:00PM.

Exactly... same here if I need to be able to rely on getting back.

That means I can't reliably do same-day business trips in the summer but I
often can do so in the winter.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

The weather data link (weather in the cockpit) would definitely help 'see'
what's ahead and around corners . My go-no go decisions are made based on
the criteria mentioned above but the screen gives me a good path around the
cells (stick to clear or light green).

Case in point was Friday returning from Ft Myers, Fl to TN. Couldn't get
away until 9pm due to solid lines across FL & GA but after dark, they died
down with large holes to fly thru. We made it without a drop on the wings
(save one little spot in GA)

Having said (?) that, I'd get TKS in a heart beat, if it were available on
my A36.
--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.



take off my shoes to reply

[Viperdoc]

TKS is available on A-36 as well as the F-33 and V tail Bonanzas. Contact AS
and T in Salina, KS.

[John P]

I'll second the "fly pretty well" with a load of ice. I should not have
been there years ago.....but.......
Another second...My two cents...I don't believe a 182 should have the
TKS...might go when you shouldn't...

John N3DR


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> > One of the members of my club has proposed that we add TKS de-ice to our
two
> > 182s. Apparently, such a system is to become available later this year.
> >
> > My reaction at first was negative. After all, in our near-NYC location,
the
> > utility of such a tool is limited to a few months a year. Surely we
could
> > spend money better (ie. on upgades that would be useful year round).
> >
> > His reply to this reasoning is that our aircraft utilization is much
lower
> > in the cold months than in the summer. If we can increase winter use,
then
> > we get better value from our investment.
> >
> > It's a good point. Of course, when I mentioned this to my wife, she
asked
> > how much of the lower use was due to the threat of ice, and how much was
> > due to our lack of love for preflighting in subzero weather.
> >
> > Another good point <grin>.
> >
> > But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing"
> > compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm
curious
> > what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply.
>
> Without "known icing" certification, I don't think it buys you much at
> all from utilization perspective. It is insurance if you get caught in
> ice, but that is it. And if if DOES increase utilization it means that
> you have pilots flying in conditions they likely shouldn't be in anyway.
>
> And, I know from a hairy personal experience, a Skylane will carry a lot
> of ice and still fly pretty well. I'd invest the money and weight into
> something more useful.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Robert M. Gary]

(Richard Kaplan) wrote in message >...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...>
> I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When
> pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have
> well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer
> thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival
> Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
> but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of
> 20 drove instead of flying.

Wow. I fly in California over teh Sierras and northern Cal. You are
almost guaranteed to get TS in the afternoon but they always seem easy
to go around. I've never had to cancel a summer afternoon flight
because of TS.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...>
>
> > Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference
> > between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do
> > with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS
> > system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical.
>
> Another difference is in-flight icing testing of a prototype airplane is
> required for known-ice certification.

Another difference is that known-ice requires that the engine still
run during ice encounter. A TKS system does not keep your fuel vents,
etc from freezing. One of the differences between the Mooney 201 and
231 (the 231 has known ice as an option) is the fuel venting.

-Robert

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> (Richard Kaplan) wrote in message >...
>
>>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...>
>>I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When
>>pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have
>>well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer
>>thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival
>>Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms
>>but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of
>>20 drove instead of flying.
>
>
> Wow. I fly in California over teh Sierras and northern Cal. You are
> almost guaranteed to get TS in the afternoon but they always seem easy
> to go around. I've never had to cancel a summer afternoon flight
> because of TS.

If you fly in the eastern US for long, you will. TS can be embedded in the
widespread overcast, you can't see `em. Just another manifestation of the
apparently huge differences in weather patterns between E and W US. I've come to
feel I understand summertime weather pretty well, but of course I haven't done
any flying out west, and I suppose it's completely different.

[Michael]

(Richard Kaplan) wrote
> I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate more than
> scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when I can get boxed in
> behind me or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms.

Depending on how you interpret that, this kind of approach would have
me grounded half the year. In reality, since I got the stormscope I
have never cancelled a flight for T-storms.

> I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots.

I think you're dramatically different from experienced IFR pilots on
the Gulf Coast. I suspect you're no different from the pilots in your
neck of the woods. All the Gulf Coast IFR pilots I know who have
equipment and experience comparable to mine have spherics and use it
agressively.

On the other hand, most of these same pilots consider known ice on a
piston airplane something of a joke.

My suspicion is that this has nothing to do with the relative
capability of the equipment or risk tolerance of the pilots and
everything to do with experience. We get very little icing here, and
thus never really learn about it. We know that the ability of a
piston airplane to handle ice is limited, but we don't know how
limited, and we're afraid of getting in over our heads. Since we will
never have the opportunity to develop the necessary experience to get
true utility out of a known-ice plane, we don't bother with it.

On the other hand, we get T-storms every day, and thus become very
familiar with the associated weather patterns. Since we have plenty
of relatively mild T-storm weather (scattered to isolated) to practice
our skills in the course of normal IFR travel (there's no need to go
looking for it) we get very familiar with how our spherics eequipment
works and how the weather patterns develop. We know that the risk of
getting boxed in is real, but we're not too worried about it because
we know how this happens and how to bail out.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>

> I think you're dramatically different from experienced IFR pilots on
> the Gulf Coast. I suspect you're no different from the pilots in your
> neck of the woods. All the Gulf Coast IFR pilots I know who have
> equipment and experience comparable to mine have spherics and use it
> agressively.

Do you think this is a function of the weather patterns in our geographic
areas (i.e. scattered airmass storms vs. frontal storms)?

In other words, if you were to move to Pennsylvania do you think you would
retain more or less the same summer utilization of your airplane?

My guess is that your thunderstorm philosophy would shift to that of
Northeast pilots while you were flying here.

I think part of this relates though to a definition of "cancelling" a
flight. I fly to Florida fairly often and I do not think I have ever had to
cancel a morning flight, yet more than once I have diverted somewhere due to
afternoon thunderstorms. When I have had to divert and then I do some
hangar flying with local pilots, usually the reply is, "You know down here
you have to plan to get your flying done by 2PM" -- I've heard that from
newly minted private pilots and from CFIIs who are "local" in Florida.

Even in Pennsylvania I guess we need to consider what it means to "cancel" a
flight. Earlier this week I returned from Mackinac Island Michigan to my
home base in Western Pennsylvania with a stop in Eastern Ohio to drop off a
passenger. There were thunderstorms enroute over the Great Lakes but I was
able to use my radar/spherics/datalink to reroute myself about 50 miles out
of the way on the first leg, thus completing the segment to Ohio by about
2PM. Yet by the time I was ready to complete the final 100-mile segment
home there were storms building enroute and near by destination as the
trailing edge of a frontal system. I "canceled" the flight until the
following AM, although I suppose I could have just "delayed" it until 11PM
when the storms had cleared -- clearly departing in the afternoon was not an
option because it turned out that a group of cells was right over my
departure airport between 6PM and 9PM.

So I think in part it depends on our definition of "cancelling" a flight.
If I lived in Florida and never "scheduled" a flight from 2PM to 8PM, then I
guess I might never "cancel" a flight in Florida.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> Do you think this is a function of the weather patterns in our geographic
> areas (i.e. scattered airmass storms vs. frontal storms)?

No, although of course I can't rule that out.

> In other words, if you were to move to Pennsylvania do you think you would
> retain more or less the same summer utilization of your airplane?

So far my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that I would. I
have flown around frontal systems in the Midwest and Northeast and I
have not been surprised.

Getting the feel of what I could and could not do wasn't something
that happened all at once. In Texas (and much of the Gulf Coast) we
get airmass thunderstorms on an almost daily basis for half the year.
Of course we also get frontal activity. I used to stay away from
frontal activity, but over time, working closer and closer to it, I've
found where the limits are.

I think the fear of getting boxed in by T-storms is somewhat akin to
the fear of getting trapped by a widespread region of freezing rain -
not unfounded, but somewhat overblown. The only way to really get
trapped is (1) to have a whole bunch of new, very closely spaced cells
form too quickly to escape or land or (2) fly between two long lines
that squeeze you in faster than you can escape or land. Since the
Stormscope provides a good indication on general static discharge
activity (not just cells) and visual contact (in my experience 85% of
an IFR flight in such conditions will be flown in the clear) with
developing clouds provides information on vertical development, you
really have to ignore what's going on around you to get trapped. I
also can't really think of any accidents within recent memory where a
spherics-equipped airplane was trapped that way.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>

> So far my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that I would. I
> have flown around frontal systems in the Midwest and Northeast and I
> have not been surprised.

Does that mean you can fly almost all the time in the summer close to your
planned course with a minimal deviation?

Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to deviate by 50 miles? 100
miles? 200 miles?

Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to adjust your departure time by
an hour? 4 hours? 8 hours?

I think "cancellation" is a relative term.

As a general rule I find I can make most summer trips if I am willing to
adjust my flight plan either by 200 miles or by 8 hours. That generally
means I just about never cancel a long-distance family vacation trip (only a
double Hurricane one caused me to do that), yet I will frequently cancel
same-day out-and-back business trips.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to deviate by 50 miles? 100
> miles? 200 miles?

I would say that 90% of the time, I deviate less than 50 miles (20
minutes or less as my plane flies) total. I have had to deviate over
100 miles. I've never had to deviate 200.

> Does it mean you can fly if you are willing to adjust your departure time by
> an hour? 4 hours? 8 hours?

I think the longest I've ever had to adjust was close to two hours (I
won't launch into conditions I think nothing of flying through because
options are so limited on takeoff) but adjustmentst of up to 30
minutes are common.

> As a general rule I find I can make most summer trips if I am willing to
> adjust my flight plan either by 200 miles or by 8 hours.

And that was more or less where I was when I started using spherics.
It's just that by sheer experience, I've learned to judge the weather
and the capability of the equipment more accurately than that.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote

> I think the longest I've ever had to adjust was close to two hours (I
> won't launch into conditions I think nothing of flying through because
> options are so limited on takeoff) but adjustmentst of up to 30
> minutes are common.

OK so suppose you are traveling due West on a 160 nm trip from Pittsburgh PA
to Columbus OH and in between there is an occluded cold front with a 250
mile vertical line of thunderstorms associated with the front. The line of
storms includes level 3 through 5 cells and the largest break in precip
would be a circuitous path at times only 15 miles wide.

I presume you are saying you would penetrate this line based on the areas
where spherics show the least activity. Yet not all storm areas with hail
or severe turbulence will show up on spherics, not to mention that the holes
between the storms could easily close. I am not sure how I could
comfortably do this trip even with multiple sources of information, i.e.
spherics plus radar plus datalink, plus the ability to fly in the lower
flight levels up to FL230.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> OK so suppose you are traveling due West on a 160 nm trip from Pittsburgh PA
> to Columbus OH and in between there is an occluded cold front with a 250
> mile vertical line of thunderstorms associated with the front. The line of
> storms includes level 3 through 5 cells and the largest break in precip
> would be a circuitous path at times only 15 miles wide.

Well, that would be the day I would need up to a 125 nm deviation, now
wouldn't it? How often does this actually happen?

And no, spherics alone would not cut it for that kind of penetration.
In fact, in my entire flying career, I've only encountered similar
situations three times. Twice I followed another (RADAR equipped)
aircraft while also getting RADAR assistance from approach control.
In both cases, I had been maintaining a steady watch on what the
weather was doing and was confident that it wasn't going to get much
worse in the few minutes the penetration would require. The other
time this wasn't an option. Remember the one time I needed a
deviation in excess of 100 nm? Well, that was it. To be honest, I
don't even think of it as a deviation if it only adds 30 minutes to my
trip. After all, car trips and airline flights are routinely delayed
that much.

Usually, my trips are significantly longer than 160 nm (if that was
typical for me, my airplane would be overkill) and so the deviations
are less significant. Also, having my course line directly
perpendicular to the front, while not particularly rare, is still a
minority of cases.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>

> Well, that would be the day I would need up to a 125 nm deviation, now
> wouldn't it? How often does this actually happen?

I would say this happens about weekly in the spring or summer, sometimes
twice weekly. It is not rare at all.

Your comments about rarely flying 160nm trips are quite relevant and may
explain a difference in our perceptions -- in the Northeast it is not at all
uncommon for a 160nm trip to be 1 hour flying in a 160 knot airplane or 5
hours driving in a car due to traffic issues... granted that is not the case
for the trip from Pittsburgh to Columbus but in the NYC-Boston-DC corridor
this is quite possible. While such short trips can be extremely
convenient uses of an airplane when weather cooperates, you are correct that
there are lots fewer practical deviation options on such a short trip. This
may well be a big difference between general aviation in the Northeast vs.
in Texas.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> While such short trips can be extremely
> convenient uses of an airplane when weather cooperates, you are correct that
> there are lots fewer practical deviation options on such a short trip. This
> may well be a big difference between general aviation in the Northeast vs.
> in Texas.

I suspect you are right. There are few meaningful destinations within
160 nm of Houston - even Dallas, which is right next door by Texas
standards, is significantly farther away. My only recurring trip of
under 160 nm is Austin - it is also the trip that, proportionately,
gets the most delay time. It's a 45 minute trip for me in good
weather; in bad weather it's not particularly rare for it to take
twice that due to deviations/delays. On the other hand, it's still
over two hours by car, and that's if I'm willing to speed a lot.

Certainly deviations/delays for weather have a proportionally bigger
impact on short trips - to the point where it may not be worth it. Of
course as a result, you get less experience optimizing your deviation,
and that makes the deviation even bigger.

Michael