![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I cancelled a flight yesterday because on top of strong gusty winds there
was an Airmet Zulu for light to moderate mixed and rime ice, and on top of that the destination was reporting layers at about 2,000 and 4,000 feet, a freezing level of about 3,000 feet, with occassional ceilings of 800 feet and rain. It seemed to me that I could probably fly between or above the layers en-route, but I was worried about the possibility of having to descend through two layers of wet (and possibly icy) clouds and maybe have to do an approach to minimums in very gusty winds. I know I did the right thing based on my low level of experience, but any ice tips from the experts, especially up here in the Great Lakes area. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ An Emacs reference mug is what I want. It would hold ten gallons of coffee. -- Steve VanDevender |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul, I'm confident you made the right decision.
If it will ease your worries for the future, though, I'll mention that when I've found myself above some icing layers at my destination, ATC has always been happy to offer me a slam-dunk descent. Sometimes, they've volunteered ahead of time that's what they planned. ---JRC--- "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message = ... I cancelled a flight yesterday because on top of strong gusty winds = there was an Airmet Zulu for light to moderate mixed and rime ice, and on = top of that the destination was reporting layers at about 2,000 and 4,000 = feet, a freezing level of about 3,000 feet, with occassional ceilings of 800 = feet and rain. It seemed to me that I could probably fly between or above = the layers en-route, but I was worried about the possibility of having to descend through two layers of wet (and possibly icy) clouds and maybe = have to do an approach to minimums in very gusty winds. =20 I know I did the right thing based on my low level of experience, but = any ice tips from the experts, especially up here in the Great Lakes area. =20 Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Tomblin wrote:
I cancelled a flight yesterday because on top of strong gusty winds there was an Airmet Zulu for light to moderate mixed and rime ice, and on top of that the destination was reporting layers at about 2,000 and 4,000 feet, a freezing level of about 3,000 feet, with occassional ceilings of 800 feet and rain. It seemed to me that I could probably fly between or above the layers en-route, but I was worried about the possibility of having to descend through two layers of wet (and possibly icy) clouds and maybe have to do an approach to minimums in very gusty winds. I know I did the right thing based on my low level of experience, but any ice tips from the experts, especially up here in the Great Lakes area. You seem comfortable with your decision so I say that you made the right decision. I worked up to flying in winter conditions progressively and after a few years would fly in most PA weather, but not all. I wasn't too worried about icing in clouds as long as it wasn't freezing rain and I didn't have to stay in the clouds (descents through I would do, usually). Of course, a lot depends on the amount of moisture in the air, thickness of the cloud layers, type of airplane (my Skylane handled ice fairly well), etc. I don't mind turbulence and have flown in some really nasty stuff, but again it depends on a lot of factors, including how I feel on a given day. Some days I feel great and will take on a lot, and some days I just don't feel like it. If I don't feel up to a given flight, I don't take it. Matt |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't mind turbulence and have flown in some really nasty stuff.....
Turbulence usually signifies cumuloform clouds and clear, instead of rime, ice. Clear ice, as you no doubt know, is much worse than rime. I've picked up rime ice quite a few times, with no problem. But one April day, years ago, near Williamsport, PA, (Great Lakes area) I picked up so much clear ice in cumuloform clouds in about ten minutes that my Chrokee 180 was down to 80 knots with full power and barely holding altitude. I could not have stayed in the air much longer. I had a Plan B, because ceilings were 2000 with great viz below (typical post-cold front wx) and I could divert to land at Williamsport. vince norris |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
vincent p. norris wrote:
I don't mind turbulence and have flown in some really nasty stuff..... Turbulence usually signifies cumuloform clouds and clear, instead of rime, ice. Clear ice, as you no doubt know, is much worse than rime. Yes, except in the winter. Here in PA (I live just 50 miles north of Williamsport) we often have strong turbulence in the winter with no clouds at all. A clear day with 40 knots at say 6000 feet over the mountains will make it very rought down low with no clouds at all. Yes, clear ice is much worse than rime and I've only had one significant encounter with it fortunately. Matt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Turbulence usually signifies cumuloform clouds and clear, instead of
rime, ice. Clear ice, as you no doubt know, is much worse than rime. Yes, except in the winter. Here in PA (I live just 50 miles north of Williamsport) we often have strong turbulence in the winter with no clouds at all. A clear day with 40 knots at say 6000 feet over the mountains will make it very rought down low with no clouds at all. Yes, I've experienced that both winter and summer, over these mountains, but I meant in IFR. And about 50 years ago, when I was in the marines, I hit very strong turbulence at 10,000 in CAVU wx over Florida, of all places! Not many ridges there. vince |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You made the right decision. Never ignore your gut feeling.
There is a ton of icing information available on the web these days...the ADDS page is very helpful in taking those airmets that cover several states and adding specificity. A rule to remember is that when ice is predicted in a volume of airspace there is a 75 percent chance that the prediction will be correct....but there is only a 15 percent chance that ice will occur on a given route. Whether those two figures will combine to deliver ice cubes along your route is problematical. The ADDS Java tool page lets you look at a cross-section of your route vis a vis icing threat, and of course there are specific icing potential pages where you can look at the threat at different altitudes. Bob Gardner "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... I cancelled a flight yesterday because on top of strong gusty winds there was an Airmet Zulu for light to moderate mixed and rime ice, and on top of that the destination was reporting layers at about 2,000 and 4,000 feet, a freezing level of about 3,000 feet, with occassional ceilings of 800 feet and rain. It seemed to me that I could probably fly between or above the layers en-route, but I was worried about the possibility of having to descend through two layers of wet (and possibly icy) clouds and maybe have to do an approach to minimums in very gusty winds. I know I did the right thing based on my low level of experience, but any ice tips from the experts, especially up here in the Great Lakes area. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ An Emacs reference mug is what I want. It would hold ten gallons of coffee. -- Steve VanDevender |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
... ... It seemed to me that I could probably fly between or above the layers en-route, but I was worried about the possibility of having to descend through two layers of wet (and possibly icy) clouds and maybe have to do an approach to minimums in very gusty winds. Sometimes you can avoid ice in the air with ease. And sometimes you can't. So unless you like Russian Roulette, you need to have a plan B. And plan B may be having warm air below you at a safe altitude, or it may be the knowledge that you've got ice-free conditions behind you. In the conditions you describe, my first concern would be whether there were safe levels at the destination below the ice, in particular in case I missed the approach. If that were the case, I wouldn't be particularly concerned with the descent through icing levels, as I'd have safe haven below. Enroute, I'd want either a safe level below the ice or the knowledge that I could avoid icing conditions by choice of level or by lateral avoidance of isolated or scattered Cu. In order to check that those conditions would exist, I'd want a similar "safe haven" at the point of departure. It goes without saying that you made the right call. Julian Scarfe |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There is the old saying "When the weather is too bad to fly IFR, go VFR."
Be careful of it. But when departing from an area with low clouds and icing and flying to better conditions, it can be a viable alternative to plan your trip with a VFR segment into conditions where you can transition to IFR. I have struggled with the conditions you describe in Michigan, and have done the semi-scudrunning thing from northern lower Michigan into Indiana where I could climb higher and pick up a clearance filed from a VOR for the rest of the route. Terrain up there is pretty benign, but there are lots of towers around the urban areas. Short trips over a familiar route can be made OK under the clouds if they are not too low, but you really need an up-to-date-sectional (meaning the current edition manually updated from the VFR Chart Bulletins) and someone to follow it for you as you fly. I won't repeat what I did, it was not a wise course of action and was not well-planned. The clouds became lower than forecast and things started getting nasty. A bad case of "get-there-itis." If the ceiling is at least 1500 ft above the MEFs on the sectional (or 1500 ft above the highest obstacle near your path), you can often maintain legal and safe VFR to a point where you can reach better conditions (in terms of ice avoidance) and pick up a prefiled clearance. Flying to a destination where you will have to descend through icy clouds is hard to do legally in most lightplanes. There are strategies for minimizing icing during the arrival, as discussed in other posts, but if you elect that approach, you just have to recognize that it is not legal and make your own choices. If conditions (forecast or actual) permit, you might can plan to descend to a low altitude, cancel IFR, and finish your trip under VFR below the icy clouds, reversing the departure method discussed above. I don't live up north, but I visit Michigan every couple of months. What I have seen mostly is a low icy layer that is not too thick, and I have never had any trouble descending through it. But if it is not too low and has holes, I have always preferred to cancel IFR and get below it when nearing my destination. You have to have holes, though, because the MVA/MIA may not be low enough to get under it while IFR. It is not uncommon for me to delay a trip (or make it earlier) to avoid conditions that are too difficult. I usually hope to find conditions where I can get down below the clouds when somewhere near my destination, but recognizing that I may have to descend through them. So I look for conditions that aren't too bad to allow that. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, you just need a bag of tricks to draw from. And yes, there will be a lot of times when you just stay on the ground. Stan "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... I cancelled a flight yesterday because on top of strong gusty winds there was an Airmet Zulu for light to moderate mixed and rime ice, and on top of that the destination was reporting layers at about 2,000 and 4,000 feet, a freezing level of about 3,000 feet, with occassional ceilings of 800 feet and rain. It seemed to me that I could probably fly between or above the layers en-route, but I was worried about the possibility of having to descend through two layers of wet (and possibly icy) clouds and maybe have to do an approach to minimums in very gusty winds. I know I did the right thing based on my low level of experience, but any ice tips from the experts, especially up here in the Great Lakes area. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ An Emacs reference mug is what I want. It would hold ten gallons of coffee. -- Steve VanDevender |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Others have offered practical information. I would add that it is illegal
to fly a airplane without known ice certification into forecast icing conditions. Mike MU-2 "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... I cancelled a flight yesterday because on top of strong gusty winds there was an Airmet Zulu for light to moderate mixed and rime ice, and on top of that the destination was reporting layers at about 2,000 and 4,000 feet, a freezing level of about 3,000 feet, with occassional ceilings of 800 feet and rain. It seemed to me that I could probably fly between or above the layers en-route, but I was worried about the possibility of having to descend through two layers of wet (and possibly icy) clouds and maybe have to do an approach to minimums in very gusty winds. I know I did the right thing based on my low level of experience, but any ice tips from the experts, especially up here in the Great Lakes area. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ An Emacs reference mug is what I want. It would hold ten gallons of coffee. -- Steve VanDevender |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's all about the credibility you don't have, ChuckZZZ | Juan.Jimenez | Home Built | 8 | November 4th 03 01:03 PM |
Oshkosh Roster -- Sign In, Please! | john smith | Home Built | 24 | July 29th 03 02:14 AM |
Oshkosh Get together Roster - Sign in, please! | Bruce E. Butts | Home Built | 4 | July 26th 03 11:34 AM |